HARI RAM Vs. ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nadaun was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is co -owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata no. 14 min, Khatauni 15 min, Khasra no. 70 area 1 kanal 11 Marlas alongwith two shops and one room situated in Village Bharthi Mauza Balduhak, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur H.P. as recorded in Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and a mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 Anita Devi to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff were also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession as a co-sharer of 3the suit land. He constructed one room, one shop and a double-storeyed shop on a portion of the suit land in the year 1989-90 after he retired from the service. The plaintiff allowed late Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, husband of defendant no.1, to reside on the first floor of shop no.2 and run a shop on the ground floor of Shop no.2 in the year 1994. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar died in an accident on 3/12/2001. Defendant no. 2 is the father of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 is the brother of defendant no.1. They pressurized the plaintiff to mutate the land, room and shop in their names. They also threatened to implicate the plaintiff and his family members in a false criminal case in case of refusal. They obstructed the plaintiff from raising any further construction. Defendant no.1 also refused to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff on demand; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi, improper valuation, defendant no.1 having become owner by way of adverse possession, defendant no.1 having a right over the suit land by way of maintenance and the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the plaintiff filed the present suit with an ulterior purpose. Defendant no.1 is the widow of the pre-deceased son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff objects to the help rendered by the father and brother of defendant no. 1. The husband of defendant no.1 late Sh. Kuldeep Kumar constructed the house and shops with due permission, full moral help and consent of the plaintiff. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar constructed the shop with the help of the loan and ?50,000/- provided by defendant no.2. Silver and gold ornaments of defendant no.1 were sold to finance the construction work. The construction was raised in the year 1989-90. The electricity connection was taken by Kuldeep Kumar. Kuldeep Kumar used to pay the house tax during his lifetime. Defendant no.1 was paying the tax after the death of Kuldeep Kumar. The license was also issued in the name of Kuldeep Kumar. The plaintiff is the owner of the land under the house and shop, but he has no right, title or interest over the shops and the house. He has no right to seek an injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff did not spend any money on the construction of the house. The plaintiff and his family members threatened to remove defendant no.1 permanently from the suit land. They also attacked defendant no.1. The matter was reported and FIR no. 68 of 2003 was registered in the police station for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 451, 323 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff has a limited share in the suit land and the maximum share was owned by Sh. Ganga Ram. The suit is bad for non-joinder of Sh. Ganga Ram, hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.