BAL KRISHAN Vs. RATTANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, dated 23.9.1999, vide which the appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, dismissing the suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff, was partly allowed and the suit of the Appellant was decreed only for part of the land comprised in Khasara No. 616, measuring 2 -1 bigha.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are the Appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 14 -2 bigha as well as for recovery of Rs. 14,972.50P. on account of damages to the fruit trees planted by the Plaintiff. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that he alongwith proforma Defendant No. 13 Smt. Krishna is recorded owner of land measuring 25 -1 bigha. It was alleged that out of this land, the land measuring 15 -12 bigha comprised in Khasra Nos. 616, 617, 618 and 620 is entered in the name of the Plaintiff as owners in possession, whereas the land measuring 5 -6 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 619, 620 min and 621 is recorded in the ownership of the Plaintiff through Defendants No. 1 and 2. It was further alleged that the land measuring 4 -3 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 620min is entered in the name of Defendants No. 3 to 8 in copy of jamabandi. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff alongwith his brother (deceased) Daya Nand was recorded owner in possession of 1/2 share and other 1/2 share belonging to Tek Chand, husband of proforma Defendant and was in possession of late Daya Nand and Bal Krishan. The total land was measuring 25 -1 bigha. It was further alleged that since the Plaintiff and his other co -sharer were residing outside Chamba being in service, Hardeu, ancestors of Defendants No. 3 to 8 got a wrong entry of tenancy effected in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1958 -59. A suit was filed by the Plaintiff and his deceased brother Daya Nand for declaration that the Plaintiff and his brother Daya Nand were owners in possession of the land measuring 25 -1 bigha. The matter ended in a compromise whereby Hardeu and Dinja, who occupied the land, agreed to hand over the possession of half of the land to the Plaintiff and his brother. The remaining half land was to remain with Defendants Hardeu and Dinja as tenants on payment of Galla Batai. The said suit was decreed as per the compromise and the Plaintiff and his brother were put in possession of the land in execution proceedings.

(3.) 1.1982 to deliver 3 -2 bighas of land to the Plaintiff and his brothers. On the basis of the compromise, the land was demarcated through Kanungo and the Plaintiff was recorded as owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 616, 617, 618 and 620 measuring 15 -2 bighas of land. It was further alleged that on 10.2.1984, the Plaintiff and his brother were granted possession of the land measuring 12 -10 bigha comprised in Khasra Nos. 616, 617, 618 and 620/1 and the statement of the Defendant was recorded and attached with warrant of attachment. It was further alleged that in pursuance of the compromise effected in compensation file decided on 4.1.1982, the Plaintiff and his brother were further allotted land measuring 3 -2 bigha and a copy of the rapat rojnamcha was also attached. The other owner Daya Nand, brother of the Plaintiff, died in the year 1984 and the Plaintiff inherited the estate of Daya Nand. It was further alleged that on 7/8th September 1985, the Defendants alognwith their women folk removed the barbed wire fencing and forcibly entered into the suit land and took possession of Khasra Nos. 617, 618, 620/2/1 measuring 4 -10 bighas. It was further alleged that the Defendants Rattan Chand etc. filed a suit that they have become owners of land by operation of law measuring 9 -12 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 619, 620 and 621. The said suit was decided against the Defendants and appeal was also decided and the judgment had become final qua the parties. In the suit filed by the Plaintiff regarding damages and for possession of land measuring 4 -10 bigha, it was alleged that the matter is pending in appeal before this Court. It was further alleged that on 25th and 26th July, 1991, the Defendants entered into the land of the Plaintiff and took forcible possession of Khasra No. 620/1 measuring 7 -11 bigha, 620/2/1 measuring 3 -2 bigha, 616 measuring 2 -1 bigha, 617 measuring 1 -4 bigha, 618 measuring 0 -4 bigha inclusive of the land which they took possession in 1985 and forcibly cut and removed the fruit plants planted by the Plaintiff. It was alleged that the Plaintiff remained in possession of a part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 620 alongwith house, besides a water tank and a small bari. Thus, it was alleged that the Plaintiff now remains in possession of Khasra No. 620/1/1 measuring 1 -9 bigha. Khasra No. 620/1/2 measuring 0 -1 bigha, khasra No. 620/1/3 measuring 0 -0 -4 bigha as per the report of the Kanungo. The Plaintiff after taking possession of the suit property planted an orchard over the suit land by raising a number of fruit trees and Defendants forcibly cut and removed and damaged the fruit trees causing loss to the extent of Rs. 14972.50P., as per the report of the Horticulture Department to which the Plaintiff is also entitled apart from the decree for possession of land measuring 14 -2 bighas. 4 In written statement filed by Defendants No. 1 and 2, they pleaded that the deceased Hardeu and Dinja were recorded tenants in possession of the suit land and Defendants No. 1 to 12 being their legal heirs are in possession of the suit land. They pleaded that Defendants No. 1 to 12 are owners in possession of the suit land and the Plaintiff has no concern with the land. They also pleaded that the Plaintiff being an employee of Revenue Department got the entries wrongly inserted in his favour which are illegal. The Defendants also denied that deceased Hardeu and Dinja ever entered into any compromise or any possession was delivered to the Plaintiff in pursuance of the compromise. They pleaded that Hardeu and Dinga were in continuous possession of the suit land and thereafter Defendants No. 1 to 12 are in possession of the suit land. They denied the factum of compromise or the Plaintiff was put in possession thereof. They admitted that an appeal is pending in this Court and there was no cause of action to file the said suit, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba on 2.1.1989 and the appeal of the Plaintiff was also dismissed on 27.6.1990.