ANANT RAM Vs. BHUP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant and has come up in appeal against concurrent findings recorded against him by the learned Courts below.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit bearing No. 134 of 1997 in the Court of Ld. Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat with the assertions that land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 56/137 min Khasra Nos. 246 to 250, 270/1 kita 6 measuring 0 -31 -10 hectare situate in village Bera, Illaqua Bhadrota, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). The suit land is recorded in the ownership and possession of one Smt. Malti deceased and a note with red ink in the remarks column on the ground that the suit land has been treated in the name of the respondents as per jamabandi in respect of the suit land in the year 1991 -92. He further pleaded that deceased Malti executed registered Will dated 30.8.1971 in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant. The respondent Bhup Chand earlier filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that Will executed by the deceased Smt. Malti be declared null and void with the further prayer that possession of the suit land be delivered in favour of the respondents. However, the suit was finally dismissed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat on 16.8.1978. Smt. Malti during her life time, remained in exclusive possession of the suit land and after her death, appellant is in exclusive possession of the suit land by virtue of the registered Will executed in his favour by late Smt. Malti. The respondent despite knowledge, suppressed even facts from the knowledge of the revenue authorities and in collusion with the revenue staff, they got mutation qua the suit land attested in their favour. The appellant was neither informed about the fact of mutation nor he was given an opportunity of being heard. The respondents without any right, title or interest in the suit land taking undue advantage of the wrong mutation, they got started causing unnecessary interference over the suit land by forcibly ploughing the same. They also destroyed the crop of the appellant when they were asked to desist from illegal activities, they did not admit the claim of the appellant and therefore, the appellant is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents and in the alternative, appellant also sought relief of possession in case during the pendency of the suit, the respondents take forcible possession of the suit land.

(3.) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the averments contained in the plaint were reiterated and the assertions made in the written statement by the defendants were denied.