DESH RAJ Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 4/8/2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by respondents no. 1 to 9 (plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (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 plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that they are owners-in-possession of the suit land described in the head note of the plaint to the extent of 29/108 shares and defendant no.1 is owner to the extent of 34/108 share. An entry in the revenue record showing the plaintiffs to be the owners to the extent of 19/108 shares and the defendant no. 1 to be the owner to the extent of 44/108 shares is wrong, illegal, null and void and the consolidation of the holdings based on the wrong shares is wrong, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs was also sought. It was pleaded that Chuhnu, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, purchased land to the extent of 1/24th share, measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas from Jamita. Mutation No. 153 was sanctioned on 11/6/1967. He also purchased 1/24th share of Mukto measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas and Mutation No. 198, dtd. 11/6/1967 was attested to this effect. He became the owner of 5 kanals 17 marlas of land to the extent of 1/12th shares. 1/24th share was under the mortgagee, which was redeemed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and Mutation No. 205 was attested to this effect. He was shown owner to the extent of 1/12th share and he became owner to the extent of 29/108 shares measuring 18 kanals 17 marlas after the attestation of Mutation No. 214. Defendant No.1 was the owner to the extent of 34/108 shares. The predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was shown as the owner of 114/648 shares and defendant no. 1 was shown owner to the extent of 264/648 shares. These shares were reflected wrongly and the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs should have been shown the owner to the extent of 29/108 shares and defendant no.1 should have been shown the owner to the extent of 22 kanals 2 marlas. The shares were wrongly reflected during the settlement. The consolidation occurred in the area and the Misal Hakiyat was prepared; however, the shares were wrongly reflected. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their share but they declined. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by defendants no. 1 to 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13 by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, defendant no.1 having become the owner by way of adverse possession and the plaintiffs being estopped by their acts and conducts from filing the present suit. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that defendant no.1 is in possession of 44/108 shares and he has become the owner of the land alleged to be in excess of his share. Nanku was found in possession of 44 shares out of 108 shares and Chunnu (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) was found in possession of 19/108 shares. The plaintiffs wrongly asserted that their predecessor-in-interest was coming into possession of 18 Kanals 17 Marlas from the date of the purchase. The consolidation operation has been completed. The consolidation authorities found defendant no.1 to be in possession of 1/7/41 hectares and prepared the record as per the possession. The suit was filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.