LAWS(HPH)-2014-2-10

BUDHI PARKASH AND ORS. Vs. DEKHNU AND ORS.

Decided On February 07, 2014
Budhi Parkash And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Dekhnu And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -defendant No. 1, Bali Bahadur in the trial Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2002, passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2001, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2001, passed by learned Sub Judge, Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 267 of 1997, is in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute in the present lis is the share of one Naranjan in the suit land entered in Khata/Khatauni No. 45/50, measuring 3 bighas 19 biswas and Khata/Khatauni No. 47/52 to 54, measuring 19 bighas 9 biswas, situated in Mohal Chhajoth, Pargana Loh Tikkri, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. The suit land to the extent of the share of aforesaid Naranjan on his death has been mutated in the name of the first respondent (plaintiff in the trial Court), who claims herself to be his daughter and defendant No. 1 Bali Bahadur allegedly an adopted son of deceased Naranjan vide mutation No. 237 dated 3.5.1997, Ext.P -3/Ext.D -5. The respondent -plaintiff claims herself to be sole legal representative of deceased Naranjan, as according to her, defendant Bali Bahadur was never adopted son by her deceased father, Naranjan. He allegedly managed the attestation and sanction of mutation No. 237 with regard to the suit land to the extent of half share in connivance with revenue staff.

(3.) IT is only defendant Bali Bahadur, who on his service in the suit, opted for putting in appearance and contested the same. In the written statement and counter -claim he has raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, locus -standi of the plaintiff and also that she by her own act and conduct is estopped from filing the present suit. On merits, he has denied the entire case as set out in the plaint being wrong and submitted that deceased Naranjan was issueless and he adopted him (defendant No. 1), as his son in his childhood.