VIJEYENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), filed civil Suit No. 12 of 1985 in this Court on 4th March, 1985. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Raja Surender Singh who was the ruler of Nalagarh State at the time when India attained independence. It was claimed that the suit property comprised in khewat khatauni No. 1/1, khasra No. 1, measuring 113 bighas 12 biswas, Jangal Nand, Pargana Nawan Nagar was the personal property of Raja Surender Singh and as per the terms of accession whereby Nalagarh State merged into the Union of India, this property was declared to be the personal property of Raja Surender Singh. It was further alleged that on 3rd March, 1984, defendants 3&4 threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs which led to the filing of the suit and by means of this suit the plaintiffs prayed that a decree may be passed restraining the defendant -State from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the State and according to the State the suit land was never in possession of the plaintiffs or their predecessor -in -interest and earlier remained in the possession of the Forest Department of Nalagarh State and later the Forest Department of the PEPSU State, thereafter the Punjab State and then the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was claimed that this property was not the private property of Raja Surender Singh and was in fact a forest and in terms of the conditions of accession it could not have been declared his private property. It was contended that the Forest Department from time to time had been auctioning the forest in question to various forest contractors for the sale of rosin / resin. It was also claimed that the suit was not within limitation and any right, title and interest that the plaintiffs may have and had, had been lost by efflux of time.

(3.) AFTER framing of issues and after some evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was recorded, the plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint seeking an alternative relief of possession and pleaded that in case they are found to be not in possession or having been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit then a decree for possession of the suit property be passed. By means of the amendment application, a decree for rendition of accounts was also sought to be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.