STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PURAN DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above said three revision petitions are taken up and heard together as common question of fact and law is involved therein, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The State of Himachal Pradesh is the Defendant and the respondents are the Plaintiffs in three different suits filed by them in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Kandaghat, District Solan. In this order the parties are referred to as 'Plaintiffs' and 'Defendant'. The State of Himachal-defendant has filed these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against three separate orders dated 1.11.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan in CMA. No. 266-S/6 of 2001, CMA. No. 49-S/13 of 2002 and CMA. No. 50-S/13 of 2002. By the impugned orders, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the application of the Defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the judgments and decree of the trial Court. In order to appreciated the controversy involved in the present proceedings, a few facts may be stated.

(3.) Plaintiffs-Puran Dutt and four Ors. filed Civil Suit No. 67-K/ 1 of 1998 on the file of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kandaghat for declaration by way of fore closure and consequential relief of permanent injunction under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order 34 Code of Civil Procedure and Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The case of the Plaintiffs was that their predecessor-in-interest was inducted as mortgagee by the predecessor- in-interest of one Bala Ram on the land comprising Khasra Nos. 4, 18 and 19, Kitas 3 measuring 4-15 bighas situated in mauza Shalau Pargana Bagri Khurd, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan for consideration and mutation No. 49 was sanctioned by the competent authority of the land in dispute in Samvat 1964, Baisakh 8. Since then the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and after his death the Plaintiffs have been coming in possession of the land in dispute. The land in dispute had vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1974-75. By that time the Plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest had already become owners in possession of the suit land by lapse of 30 years time since the date of mortgagee as the original owner Bala Ram had failed to get the land in dispute redeemed within the prescribed period but the Plaintiffs are shown as mortgagees under the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, the vestment of the land in dispute in the State of Himachal Pradesh itself was wrong, illegal and void and contrary to revenue entries not showing the Plaintiffs as owners after 30 years. On these premises the suit came to be filed.