LAKHU Vs. SADHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Kangra, wherein, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge Una, he has dismissed the suit of Lakhu appellant which was for permanent injunction restraining Sadhu Defendant No. 1 from making construction over property known as "Taur" (dilapidated building site) alleged to be belonging to the Plaintiff and, in the alternative, for delivery of possession of the said Taur to the Plaintiff. The material facts which have a bearing on the points at issue are, that Lakhu appellant claimed to be the owner in possession of the Taur which according to him formerly belonged to Kesria who was tenant to Bhagat Ram. Subsequently Kesria died without leaving any heir and the disputed Taur reverted to the proprietor Bhagat Ram. On 1 -6 -1954 by a registered sale deed (Ex.P. 1) the disputed Taur was sold by Bhagat Ram to Lahku and Hamira. The latter was predecessor -in -interest of the Defendants 2 to 4 who are made Respondents in the appeal. In this manner, the Plaintiff Lakhu claimed a title for the Taur and also claimed his possession over it. According to the Plaintiff, Sadhu Defendant attempted interference in his possession and wanted to make construction. Therefore, he filed the suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for delivery of possession.

(2.) The Defendant -Respondent Sadhu contested the suit on the allegations, that he is owner in possession and that his 'chhapar' and 'khurlis' (cattle troughs) exist over the Taur from the last 50 years or so. After the death of Kesria, the Taur could revert to the entire body of proprietors and not to Lakhu alone. In fact, Sadhu Defendant also claimed to be one of the proprietors in the village. Apart from this according to Defendant a little more than six months after the execution of the sale -deed, a compromise was brought into existence amongst Lakhu, Sadhu and Hamira. As a result to that compromise, they settled their existing disputes regarding possession. Sadhu possessed another Taur which was adjacent to the Taur in dispute. Besides that, he was also in possession over specific portions inside the disputed Taur. All the three parties agreed to retain joint possession over the two Taurs. A memorandum containing the compromise was executed. As a result to that compromise, joint possession was sustained and the Plaintiff could not claim exclusive title or possession. It was also contended that the Plaintiff was estopped from claiming exclusive possession and as, such no injunction could be granted in his favour.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that the compromise deed dated 21 -7 -1951 required registration and hence was inadmissible in evidence.