BRIJ BIHARI LAL Vs. SARVI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 C.P.C., filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dated 21.9.2000, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, dismissing the suit of the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Chuni Lal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against the original respondent/defendant Gandhi, now represented by his L.Rs i.e. respondents No. 1(a) to 1(f), hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that suit land measuring 16-4 Bighas comprised in Khasra Numbers as detailed in the plaint, is owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased this land from one Smt. Har Dei vide sale deed dated 9.7.1960. It was alleged that when the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Smt. Har Dei, she was in possession of the land as owner. Thereafter in the year 1960, the plaintiff cultivated the Kharif crop in the land in suit, but had gone out of his village and the defendant cultivated the Rabi crop in the land in suit in the year 1961. It was alleged that the defendant forcibly took the land in suit in his possession and filed an application before the Compensation Officer to acquire proprietary rights representing himself as tenant. It was further alleged that the defendant acquired proprietary rights in the suit land vide order dated 27.4.1970, which was later on confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 24.9.1970. It was alleged that the defendant was never a tenant under the plaintiff, the order of Compensation Officer is against law and without jurisdiction and he had no jurisdiction to grant proprietary rights to the defendant. Thus, it was alleged that the defendant is in illegal possession of land and is entitled to pay Rs. 400.00 to the plaintiff as mense profit from Rabi 1968 to 1970.

(3.) The defendant took up preliminary objections in regard to jurisdiction, maintainability and limitation. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not owner of the land, but it is in the ownership of the defendant, who is in possession since time of Smt. Har Dei as he was a tenant under her. The plaintiff was never in possession of the land in suit. The defendant acquired proprietary rights of the land in suit from the Compensation Officer, whose decision was confirmed by the learned District Judge, which is binding upon the plaintiff.