LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-94

JOGINDER SINGH Vs. DESH RAJ

Decided On May 10, 2013
Joginder Singh and Ors. Appellant
V/S
DESH RAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2001 rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.59 of 1999.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff) filed a suit in the trial court for vacant possession of the land by demolition of the structure, if any, found on the land comprising in Khewat No. 138 min, Khatauni No. 327, Khasra No. 1445, measuring 0-05-74 hectares situated in Mohal Borka Mouza Bhalli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') against the predecessor-ininterest of the appellants, namely, Dayalu (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake) on the pleadings that the suit land is recorded in the ownership of the plaintiff and other-co-sharers and in possession of defendant as "Kabiz" as per copy of Missal Hakiat and the suit land has been carved out from Khasra No. 386 min, measuring 16 Kanals 5 marlas (Khewat No. 151, Khatauni No. 218, Khasra No. 386 min) and the suit land was in personal cultivation of the owners recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1976-77. Defendant has no right, title or concern with the suit land. It was during the settlement 1983-84 in the month of November that the defendant encroached upon the suit land.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he was in possession of the suit land for more than 25 years as a tenant and has become owner of the same after enactment of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Nurpur framed issues on 12.2.1997. He decreed the suit on 12.10.1998. Defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial question of law: