SURINDER SINGH Vs. KUBJA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2008 rendered by the District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 85-S/13 of 2006.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the plaintiffrespondent (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that one Sh. Sita Ram son of Sh. Hari Ram was owner in possession of the suit land. After his death, his estate was inherited by his three daughters, namely, Nimoo, Kamla and Kubja in equal shares. One of the daughters Kamla died and appellant-defendant Surinder Singh, Devinder Singh, Kaushlya, Gauri and Usha were her legal heirs. The other two daughters are plaintiff Kubja and defendant No.2 Nimoo. Appellant defendant No.1-Surinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as "defendant No.1" for convenience sake) in collusion with the revenue officials got his name entered in the column of possession as per Jamabandi for the year 1973-74, which was wrong illegal and contrary to law. There were no bases for the change in the revenue entries. The plaintiff came to know about the existence of wrong revenue entries in the year 1988. Accordingly, plaintiff filed an application for correction of the revenue entries in the Court of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Theog, being case No. 1/90. The same was rejected by him on 23.2.1993. She came to know from the reply filed by defendant No.1 that an application for revenue entry was filed by Nimoo before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Theog against defendant No.1, being case No.30/79-80. The application was compromised. She was not party to the same.

(3.) Defendant No.1-Surinder Singh alone has filed written statement. Name of Smt. Padmoo, who was also added as party-respondent was deleted. She did not file any written statement. Defendant No.2 earlier was proceeded ex parte and later on died and on an application by the plaintiff, she was exempted to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant. No written statement was filed on her behalf. The stand of defendant No.1 was that Sita Ram had only three daughters but it was incorrect that they on his death became owners in possession of the suit land. He had good relations with Sita Ram. He spent most of the time with him. He used to cultivate his land. He was Gair-Marusi tenant over the suit land and was paying Rs. 40/- as Chakota per year. He has denied that he in collusion with revenue officials got his name entered in the revenue record. His name has been entered on the basis of Roz-Namcha. He was found in possession by the Patwari on inspection. He has become owner in possession of the suit land after the enforcement of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Defendant No.2 Nimoo had admitted the tenancy of the replying defendant, which admission was binding.