SATYA PRAKASH Vs. VIPAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, in terms whereof, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and the appeal also met with the same fate.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiffs was for declaration that the land measuring 193420 Sq.Metres, bearing khewat No.117, khatauni No.181, khasra Nos.1711, 1803, 1902, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 200506, situated in upmohal Chabba Nagar, Santokhgarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P., was owned by one Bhagat Ram, the predecessorininterest of the defendants. He had mortgaged the suit land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs vide Mortgage Deed dtd. 4/6/1945. As per the plaintiffs, their father and thereafter, they alongwith their sisters continued to be in possession of the suit land as mortgagees. On 16/10/1964, Bhagat Ram sold the suit land to the plaintiffs vide Sale Deed of even date for a consideration of Rs.2,500.00 The possession of the plaintiffs continued thereafter as owners. For some reason, the plaintiffs could not get the mutation attested in their favour due to paucity of time. This emboldened the defendants, who on the strength of wrong entries in the revenue record, made an endeavour to alienate the suit land. The defendants were asked by the plaintiffs to admit their claim, but as the defendants did not do so, hence, the suit for declaration and issuance of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that though the suit land was owned and possessed by Bhagat Ram, their predecessorininterest and the plaintiffs had no concern whatsoever with the suit land which was exclusively in the ownership and possession of the defendants, who had succeeded to the estate of Bhagat Ram. According to the defendants, neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessorininterest even came in possession of the suit land in any capacity either as owners thereof or as mortgagees and in fact no Sale Deed as alleged by the plaintiffs was ever executed by Bhagat Ram in their favour.