KUSUM S.CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are plaintiffs and aggrieved by judgement, decree dated 1.9.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 22-S/13 of 99/2000 affirming the judgement, decree dated 27.2.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (I), Shimla in Case No. 286-1 of 95/92. The facts in brief are that Satish Chand predecessor-in-interest of appellants had filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent restraining latter from deleting his name from the column of owner in possession in respect of property known as Station View Estate, Kareru, House No. 36, Shimla (for short, suit property). It has been alleged that after purchase of the suit property, late Satish Chand had received notice from Assistant Secretary (Tax), Municipal Corporation, Shimla for entering his name in municipal record and thereafter entry was made. Thus Satish Chand was made liable to pay municipal taxes, which he paid.

(2.) It has been alleged that thereafter Satish Chand had received letter from Assistant Secretary (Tax) for deleting his name from municipal record. The respondent had no power to delete the name once incorporated in the record or direct late Satish Chand to produce record regarding his title. The further case of late Satish Chand was that K.L. Bhatia, Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) had earlier passed illegal orders which were challenged before the High Court in writ petition and the High Court quashed those orders and directed Settlement Officer to dispose of the case himself.

(3.) The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement, in which preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action were taken. On merits, respondent took the stand that late Satish Chand had failed to disclose how and when he acquired ownership over the property. Late Satish Chand was not eligible to acquire immovable property in the State of Himachal Pradesh being non-agriculturist. Late Satish Chand managed to get his name included in the record of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He tried to take advantage of his own wrong. The entries in the municipal record based upon wrong revenue record were not legal and valid. On inquiry from revenue department, it was revealed that sale deed was cancelled by District Collector/Registrar, Shimla. It was admitted that late Satish Chand had paid municipal taxes from the year 1989 to 1992. The proposed action was done in view of cancellation of sale deed by the competent authority. The respondent was not a party in the writ petition filed in the High Court. The respondent is required to maintain record according to correct, factual and legal position. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the suit.