NIAZ BIBI Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una), H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76/94 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Case No. 821 of 1989.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noticed. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 21 Kanal 15 marlas bearing Khewat No. 450 min, Khatauni No. 638, Khasra Nos. 4594/1192, 4596/1193, 1194, 1277, 1278, 1279 and 1280 as entered in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1980 -81 situated in Village Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by the plaintiff as Hissadar owner being the vendee from the defendants No. 1 and 2 and order dated 17.12.1988 partitioning the suit land behind the back of the plaintiff and subsequent mutation on its basis is wrong, baseless as against the right of the plaintiff and for issuance of permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by her and the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the extent of half share and defendant No. 3 is owner half share respectively. In fact defendant No. 1 and 2, vide registered sale deed dated 12.12.1972 sold the suit land as Hissedar owners to the plaintiff and Smt. Niaz Bibi wife of Badar Deen and Sardaran Bibi wife of Jamal Deen for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/ -. Later on Niaz Bibi and Sardaran Bibi sold their share in the above land vide two registered sale deeds dated 20.1.1977 in favour of the plaintiff. Lateron defendant No. 3 in collusion with the defendants No. 1 and 2 with a view to harm the legal rights of the plaintiff filed a petition for partition of the suit land before the A.C. 1st Grade, Amb wherein the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party nor the plaintiff has knowledge of such partition proceedings. The defendants at the back of the plaintiff procured an order of partition of land in file No. 1/88 whereby the land measuring 4 Kanals 10 marlas, out of the suit land was wrongly taken out and allotted to defendant No. 3, thus causing deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 marlas to the plaintiff. As a result of aforesaid partition, order which has caused deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 Marlas, to the plaintiff the same is null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants and re -affirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the assertions of the defendants made in their written statements.