GURDIAL SINGH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 91-N/2000.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience) had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land, bearing Khata No. 66 (34 min red), Khatauni No. 149, Khasra Nos. 787, 790, 791, 792, 794, 857, measuring 2-34-04 HM, situated in Bela Indora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). According to him, earlier he was cultivating the suit land as a tenant and after coming into force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he has become owner in possession of the suit land and the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for the sake of convenience) have no right, title or interest with the land in any manner. He further pleaded that he is in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 55 (32 min in red), Khatauni No. 129, Khasra Nos. 1009, 1010, 1011, measuring 0-5-76 HM, situated in Village Bela Indora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. as a co-sharer to the extent of share and the gift deed dated 20.02.1992 executed by deceased Rumela in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, pertaining to Khata No. 66 (34 min in red), Khatauni No. 149, Khasra Nos. 787, 790, 791, 792, 794, 857, measuring 2-34-01 HM and Khata No. 129, Khatauni No. 129, Khasra Nos. 1009, 1010, 1011, measuring 0-55-76 HM is illegal and void. According to him, the same was out come of mis-representation and fraud played by the defendants. According to him, the age of Rumela at the time of death was 90 years. He died on 29.03.1992. It is also pleaded that defendant No. 3 Shri Gurdas Ram is the brother of plaintiff. He is residing in village Tanda Ramdas in Hoshiarpur District. Rumela Singh has been staying with the plaintiff in Bela Indora. He was taken to village Tanda Ram Dass by defendant No. 3. Rumela was ill and he was not in full senses. The plaintiff had been cultivating the land bearing in Khata No. 66 as a tenant under the land owner since 1965 till the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Rumela has never cultivated the suit land. The remaining land comprised in Khata No. 55 was also cultivated by the plaintiff exclusively. The revenue record remained in the name of deceased Rumela in respect of both the land detailed above and the receipts regarding the rent pertaining to the land under tenancy were issued in the name of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he has also moved an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari and revenue record pertaining to that piece of land before the revenue authorities. The defendants No. 1 and 3, in connivance with each other, taking the advantage of the old age of the deceased Rumela, have got executed the gift deed in respect of whole of the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, Rumela has never executed any gift deed in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2. Rumela has died within a month of the execution of the gift deed. He was seriously ill. According to him, the land bearing Khata No. 53 is jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 5 and defendants No. 1 and 2 have got no concern with the whole of the suit land. He has constructed a residential house on the suit land. The defendant taking advantage of the ill health of the deceased Rumela, also got executed a sale deed pertaining to the suit land for a consideration of RS.20,000/- on 20.02.1992.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 3 to 5 have also filed a separate written statement. They have stated that the defendant No. 3 has got residential house at both villages, i.e., Village Tanda Ramdas as well as Village Bela Indora. According to them, the plaintiff has never rendered services to deceased Rumela. According to them, deceased Rumela was looked after by defendants No. 1 and 2.