DOOM RAM Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of RSA No. 474 of 2000 and RSA No. 534 of 2000, both having arisen from common judgment, decree dated 29.04.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1992. RSA No. 474 of 2000 has been filed by Defendants No. 1, 4, 5, 7 to 9. RSA No. 534 of 2000 has been filed by Defendants No. 2 and 3 Some of the parties have died. Their legal representatives have been brought on record, the parties are referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants in this judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts are that Smt. Indira, Nand Lal and Smt. Ruke had filed a suit for declaration that they are successors -in interest of late Bal Kishan along with proforma Defendants namely Govind, Lajja, Smt. Urmila, Smt. Chuhri, Smt. Nirmala and Padma in which Plaintiffs have 3/8th shares and proforma Defendants 5/8th shares in land measuring 17 -11 -11 bighas described in the plaint. The land measuring 3 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 374/62 be adjusted in the shares of proforma Defendants while ascertaining the shares of Plaintiffs. They have also prayed decree of joint possession in their favour as well as in favour of proforma Defendants.

(3.) IT has been alleged that Defendant No. 1 in collusion with lower revenue staff got his name recorded as non -occupancy tenant over land measuring 14 -11 -11 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 45, 475/62, 101 and 103. The entry of non -occupancy tenant in favour of the Defendant No. 1 is wrong and illegal. On the basis of wrong revenue entry, the proprietary rights were conferred vide mutation No. 124 behind the back of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No. 1 has also sold land in favour of Defendant No. 2 Mehar Singh and Defendant No. 3 Basanta vide registered sale deeds No. 412 and 413 respectively both dated 23.05.1989 which are wrong and illegal. Durga Dutt was real brother of Plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 and maternal uncle of Plaintiff No. 2 and remained in possession of suit land till his death. The Plaintiffs came to know existence of wrong revenue entries in July, 1989. On 01.12.1989 the Defendants refused to admit the claim of the Plaintiffs. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession.