BHAGAT RAM Vs. USHA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) RSA No. 283/2010 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2010 rendered by the District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal 50 -S/13 of 2008/04. RSA No. 284/2010 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2010 rendered by the District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 10 -S/13 of 2010/2004. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of both the Regular Second Appeals have been dealt with separately.

(3.) RESPONDENTS -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiffs" for convenience sake) filed a Civil Suit No. 35/1 of 2000 against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake) for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant permanently from interfering in their possession over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 41, Khatauni No. 73, Khasra Nos. 725, 726, 728, 729, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 737 and 738 area measuring 38 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Kanda, Pargana Kaljoon, Tehsil Shimla (Rural), District Shimla. According to them, Nand Lal Verma, father of the plaintiffs was owner of the suit land. He gifted the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and one Prathibha. Plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. Defendant has no right, title or interest in it. Defendant in order to grab the suit land, filed an application before the Tehsildar, Shimla for direction to Halqua Namberdar that the land revenue of the suit land be taken from him. He also filed another application for correction of revenue entries to the effect that defendant is in actual possession of the suit land. Defendant procured an illegal and void order dated 12.8.1999 behind the back of the plaintiffs. He on the strength of the order started doing casual acts of trespass. It is in these circumstances, plaintiffs filed the civil suit.