KULDEEP RAJ Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of land measuring 0-27-11 hectare comprised in Khasra No 318 situated in Mohal Majethli. Mauza Pathiar, Tehsil and District Kangra as per copy of Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid (hereinafter called the land in dispute).

(2.) Admittedly, Smt. Shanti Devi, the mother of the Respondent-Plaintiff, was owner of the land in dispute and after her death the Respondent-Plaintiff succeeded her. She filed Civil Suit for possession of the land in dispute against Appellant-Defendant. The case set up by her is that the land in dispute was previously under cultivation of Piar Chand, Savitri, Lachhmi and Kirpoo, but after the death of Kirpoo, they handed over the possession to the owner Smt. Shanti Devi. It is further alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the Respondent-Plaintiff, the Appellant-Defendant got his name entered in the column of cultivation in the revenue record in collusion with the Settlement Staff as well as Piar Chand and on that pretext he forcibly took possession of the land in dispute in the year 1975. According to Respondent-Plaintiff, the Appellant-Defendant has no right, title and interest in the land in dispute and he is liable to put her in possession.

(3.) The Appellant-Defendant resisted the suit mainly on the ground that he was tenant over the land in dispute and in view of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the Respondent-Plaintiff, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He denied the allegations of the Respondent-Plaintiff that he ever took forcible possession of the land in dispute, rather the mother of the Respondent-Plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi had inducted him as a tenant by a written agreement dated 23-8-1966 on payment of lumpsum amount of Rs. 150 per annum as rent. According to him, he continued to be in possession as tenant even after the expiry of the lease period of four years He has also denied that he got the entries made in his favour in the revenue record in collusion with the revenue staff as alleged by the Respondent-Plaintiff. In her replication, the Respondent-Plaintiff admitted the claim of the Appellant-Defendant to the extent that he was inducted as tenant by her mother Smt. Shanti Devi for a period of four years but alleged that after the expiry of the lease period, the possession of the Appellant-Defendant over the land in dispute is that of a trespasser.