MOOL RAJ SON OF SHRI DES RAJ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JSSOOR, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA HP Vs. SH. GOVIND SINGH PATHANIA, ADOPTED SON OF LATE SHRI HARNAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JASSOOR, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA (HP) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court in the suit instituted by the respondent herein to the effect that he is the owner in possession of three double storeyed shops having concrete slabs etc. comprised in Khata No. 22 min, Khatoni No. 53 min-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-61-62-63-64-72-73- 76-77 Khasra No. 313/59/4/2 measuring 0-5 Marlas etc. adjoining the National Highway.

(2.) The pleadings are far from anything what is required in a case. It is pleaded that two judgments of this Court passed in RSA No. 80/94 decided on 15.11.1996 and RSA No. 309/99 decided on 22.4.2010 do not pertain to the shops of the plaintiff falling in Khasra No. 313/59/4/2 and the entries made during the settlement with respect to the shops are contrary to the revenue record and are wrong, inoperative against the interest of the plaintiff and subsequent jamabandies from 1991 upto 2007 are null and void for the reason that order in correction application No. (16)6/90/S.O. dated 01.08.1990 qua the said shops passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala has been ignored by this Court. Two judgments of this Court rendered in RSA No. 80 of 1994 titled Mool Raj Vs. Govind Ram and others on 15th Nov., 1996 and RSA No. 309 of 1999 titled Manohar Lal Khullar and another Vs. Mool Raj decided on 22.4.2010 do not decide the controversy according to correct facts.

(3.) The petitioner who is the defendant pleads that RSA No. 80 of 1994 titled Mool Raj Vs. Govind Singh and others was instituted in this Court. One Manohar Lal Khullar was already a tenant in the property in dispute at the time of its sale to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a petition for eviction of this tenant wherein the present respondent-plaintiff before the learned trial Court was also a party. The suit was resisted by the tenant on the ground that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The stand of the plaintiff-respondent herein was that though the constructed shops was sold to the petitioner herein but by order dated 1.8.1990 passed by the Settlement Collector at Dharamshala it was held that Khasra No. 275 was outside the area sold to the petitioner. In RSA No. 80 of 1994 this Court noted that the appellant therein was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge whereby the appeal of the defendant therein was accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, II, Nurpur District Kangra was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court in the following terms: