STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SONDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, in Civil Appeal No. 33 NL/13 of 1993.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that Respondent No. 1 Soudhu Ram and his brother Shiv Ram [since deceased and now represented by Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(c)] (hereafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs') instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent Injunction against the Appellant/Defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the Defendant'). The case of the Plaintiffs, as made out in the plaint, is that the land comprising Khasra No. 263 measuring 5 Bighas 6 Biswas, Khewat Khatauni No. 56 min/68, situate in village Kholowal, Pargana Gullerwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, as specifically detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 (hereafter referred to as 'the suit land') is in possession .of the Plaintiffs since 1.7.1958 when they entered on the said land and planted trees of Kikkar, Beri etc. thereon and also used the same as Ghasni. Thereafter they remained in continuous uninterrupted, hostile possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the residents of Village Kholowal, Gram Panchayat Kholowal and with the passage of time acquired title of ownership by way of adverse possession against the then owner of the land on 30.6.1970. The suit land did not vest in the Defendant as the Plaintiffs had become owner thereof by virtue of their adverse possession and the Defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. It is further averred that the entries in the revenue record showing the Defendant as owner of the suit land are illegal, null and void, inoperative and ineffective. Even otherwise the Plaintiffs are entitled to retain the possession of the suit land under the latest encroachment policy of the H.P. Government. Their request to move their case for admitting them to be the owners of the suit land was declined and the Defendant is threatening them to launch ejectment proceedings against them to evict them from the suit land. Hence, the suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue records showing the Defendant as owner in possession are wrong, illegal, null and void, inoperative and ineffective and the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land.

(3.) The Defendant contested the suit. In the written statement, it raised the preliminary objections that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, that the Plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi and the suit is not maintainable. On merits, it has been claimed that the Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land which is owned and possessed by the Defendant. The acquisition of title by virtue of adverse possession has been denied and the revenue records have now been updated. As per the Report Roznamcha No. 182 dated 9.2.1998, the entries have been corrected and such entries showing the Defendant as owner in possession of the suit land are factually correct and thus the claim of the Plaintiffs has been denied in to to.