THAKUR DASS Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, dated 31.10.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No. 57/13 of 2008.

(2.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, for the convenience sake), Sh. Ganga Ram filed a suit for declaration with prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). The case of the plaintiffs, in a nut shell, is that the defendants had instituted a suit for foreclosure of land measuring 23.6 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 49, 65, 70, 71, 76, 70 and 87 situated in village Kyari, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. claiming the same to be in their possession since 26.7.1988. The litigation came up to this Court. Thereafter, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement on 20.8.2001, whereby the plaintiff Ganga Ram had orally relinquished the title and possession of the land measuring 2 bighas comprised in Kh. No. 71/3 and land measuring 8 biswas in Kh. No. 65/1 and land measuring 0.12 bighas out of Kh. No. 54 in favour of the defendants while defendants relinquished their title orally in favour of plaintiff of the rest of the suit land. The suit land was in the possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff-Ganga Ram, thereafter filed an application for the verification of the physical possession of the spot and Field Revenue Staff visited the spot. The possession of the parties was confirmed by the revenue staff. In the alternative, plaintiffs have asserted that the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 16 to 20 have left 1.13 bighas land in favour of plaintiff Ganga Ram on 30.11.1960. Thus, the entries in the revenue record are illegal. The plaintiffs deserves to be declared co-owners in joint possession to the extent of 2/3rd share of all the property of Sh. Kundan son of Sh. Laturia, on the basis of the registered 'Will' dated 5.7.1976. The cause of action arose to the plaintiffs on 25.9.2001 when the defendants resiled from the oral relinquishment/settlement dated 20.8.2001 and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff No. 1 has become owner in possession of land measuring 20.18 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 65/2, 71/1, 71/2, 49, 76, 79, 70, 87, khata No. 3 min Khatoni No. 3 & 5 situated in Village Kyari, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. on the basis of relinquishment dated 20.8.2001. The plaintiffs have further prayed that a decree of declaration be passed to the effect that plaintiffs are owner in possession over the suit land measuring 1.13 bighas comprised in Kh. No. 65/2 on the basis of compromise dated 30.11.1960 executed by Smt. Judhya Devi wife of Ruwalu Ram. It was also prayed that mutation No. 133 sanctioned on 31.5.1984 in favour of plaintiff Ganga Ram and defendant No. 21 Sant Ram be declared illegal and wrong. Plaintiffs have prayed for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs and creating any charge or interfering in the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, the suit for foreclosure was filed by them which was decreed. The appeal filed by Ganga Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. and Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. It was denied that the suit land remained in the possession of the plaintiffs. It was also denied that the parties have entered into amicable settlement or relinquishment dated 20.8.2001. There was no spot inspection made by the revenue officials. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of declaration or any other alternative relief.