HARDEVI Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1998 whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur dismissing the suit of the original Appellant/Plaintiff [now represented by his legal representatives Appellants No. 1(a) to l(i)] (hereafter referred to as 'the Appellants').

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the deceased Appellant instituted a suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the Appellants, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 45 min/68, Khasra Nos. 998/289, 999/289 measuring 2 Kanal 17 Marias, situate in Tika Peharwin, Tehsil Barsar, specifically detailed in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 (hereafter referred to as 'the suit land') had been in their adverse possession for more than 12 years at the time of institution of the suit and they have acquired the title of ownership thereto. However, in the entries in the revenue records the Respondents/Defendants (hereafter referred to as 'the Respondents') are wrongly shown as owners in possession of the suit land. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in collusion with other Respondents got transferred the suit land to defeat the ownership rights of the Appellants and to interfere with their possession and started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The-Respondents contested the suit. In the written statement, they raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, that the Appellant is estopped by his act and conduct from instituting the suit, that the suit is under valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the Appellants have no cause of action. On merits, it has been claimed that the Plaintiff(s) had never been either owner or in possession of the suit land but it is in possession of Respondents No. 1 and 2 as the Respondents other than Respondents No. 1 and 2 had sold their share in the suit land to Respondents No. 1 and 2 who are now owners in possession of the suit land. Thus, the claim of the Appellants has been denied in toto.