VED PRAKASH Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost before both the Courts below, have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Plaintiffs' and 'defendants').

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, injunction and in alternative for possession against the defendants before the learned Trial Court on the ground that the sale deeds dated 07.07.1995 and 28.12.1995 in favour of defendant No. 1, Smt. Kamla Devi are wrong, null and void and the defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from encroaching upon the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 179/272 Khasra No. 926 and 927 measuring 345.95 sq. meters, situated in Muhal Tarna, Mandi town, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded before the lower court is that Amar Chand had previously instituted Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 for declaration against Girja Nand, Dhananjai and Smt. Titli Devi to the effect that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties. Said Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 was dismissed on 13.12.1991 and it was held that Girja Nand had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. After decision of the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 14/1990, Girja Nand moved an application for correction of entries in the revenue record in accordance with the said judgment and decree but in the meantime, Girja Nand died on 12.02.1994. the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are legal heirs of late Girja Nand and they have inherited the suit land of Girja Nand and thus they are owners in possession of the same. The plaintiffs met defendant No. 2 on 19.04.1996 at Sarkaghat when defendant No. 2 told the plaintiff No. 1 that the defendant No. 1 had purchased share of Dhananjai of the suit land and the defendant No. 2 asked the plaintiff No. 1 to get the suit land partitioned. But the plaintiff No. 1 told defendant No. 2 that Dhananjai had no title in the suit land as per aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.12.1991, therefore, the sale deeds executed by Dhananjai in favour of defendant No. 1 are illegal, null and void. Thereafter the plaintiff No. 1 obtained copies of sale deed. During the intervening night of 11-12th May, 1996, the defendants No. 1 and 2 behind the back of the plaintiffs constructed wooden khokha on a vacant portion of the suit land. Thereafter the plaintiff No. 1 came from Sarkaghat and he asked the labourers of the defendants to stop construction work on the suit land but they did not stop the same. Hence, the plaintiffs had to institute the suit against the defendants.