SUBHASH CHAND Vs. DAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant, whose suit for declaration and possession was decreed by the learned trial court, however such judgment was reversed by the learned first appellate court constraining him to file the instant appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the mutation No. 601 attested on 29/8/2007 on the basis of the sale deed, dtd. 25/8/2007, executed by defendant No.2 late Bal Raj in favour of defendant No.1 Daya Devi, appellant herein, to the extent of 85/243 share measuring 8/10/0 Bighas of total land measuring 24- 06-00 comprised in Khata Khatauni No.5/5 situated at Mohal Ninuien Pargana Dhundhi, Tehsil and District Chamba, HP is against the preferential right of the plaintiff and is therefore null and void and also inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of possession of land to the extent of 85/243 share, measuring 8- 10-00 bighas, out of the total land measuring 24- 06- 00 bighas, Khata Khatauni No. 5/5, situated at Mohal Nihuien, as aforesaid.

(3.) It was further averred by the plaintiff that the land measuring 24/6/0 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1430, 1535, 1601, 1612, 1613, 1618, 2047/1620, 1621, 1639, 1673, 1683, 1817, 1818, Kitta-13, Khata Khatauni No. 5/5 was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 as joint owners in possession as per the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. The suit land had devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 upon the death of their father Late Raghu. Late Raghu had another son namely Gian Chand, who had separated from the joint family a long time ago after taking his separate share. The plaintiff further averred that defendant No. 2 had sold his share by way of a 'Benami' transaction to defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dtd. 25/8/2007 and subsequently mutation No. 601 had been entered and thus both the sale deed as well as the mutation are void as they are in violation of the pre-emptive rights of the plaintiff.