KUNJ LAL Vs. KEKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. dated 9.8.2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2000.

(2.) KEY facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellants -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, for the convenience sake), have instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative suit for possession against the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) or their predecessor in interest. According to the plaintiffs, their predecessor -in -interest, namely Sh. Bhagat Ram was owner -in -possession of land comprised in Kh. Nos. 701 and 702 as per jamabandi for the year 1960 -61 and 1/3rd share of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 207/310, Kh. No. 39, specifically described in jamabandi for the year 1966 -67 and predecessor -in -interest of the defendants No. 3(a) to 3(f) of Jeet Ram, as per the array of parties given in original suit. Since the deceased defendant Jeet Ram was owner -in -possession of Kh. No. 260 and 695 and of 1/2 share of land comprised in Kh. No. 661, as per jamabandi for the year 1960 -61, Sh. Bhagat Ram predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs exchanged 4/5th share of his land comprised in Kh. No. 701 and land comprised in Kh. No. 702 with the 1/2 share of land comprised in Kh. No. 661 and Kh. No. 695 belonging to Jeet Ram vide mutations No. 539 dated 29.9.1965 and mutation No. 548 dated 12.8.1966. Sh. Jeet Ram has also exchanged his land comprised in Kh. No. 260 with the 11/14 share of land comprised in Kh. No. 18 belonging to defendant No. 13 Dola Ram vide mutation No. 837 dated 26.9.1965 and Dola Ram in turn exchanged the land comprised in Kh. No. 260 with 1/3rd share of land comprised in Kh. No. 39 belonging to Bhagat Ram vide mutation No. 538 dated 26.9.1965. Defendant No. 13 Dola Ram subsequently transferred Kh. No. 39 in favour of defendant No. 14 Ram Dayal and defendant No. 15, Thakar Dass. Jeet Ram further transferred Kh. Nos. 701 and 702 in favour of defendants No. 8 to 13, namely, Nawang Chhering, Dorje Angroop, Tashi Angroop, Tashi Tandup, Padma Dorje and Dole Ram. Bhagat Ram raised an orchard on the suit land. They came to know for the first time in the year 1997 that Thakri Devi widow of Parmanand was owner -in -possession of 1/2 share of Kh. Nos. 260, 695 and 661 along with some other Khasra numbers and that she had gifted this land in favour of Sh. Jeet Ram. However, she subsequently filed a suit bearing No. 250 of 1964 against defendant Jeet Ram. The matter was compromised on 11.5.1965. The compromise decree was drawn. According to the compromise -decree, Jeet Ram would pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/ - to her along with the arrears of Rs. 200/ - and in case of default Thakri Devi was empowered to get the possession of the gifted land back by way of execution. Thereafter, Thakri Devi hatched a conspiracy with Jeet Ram by concealing the material facts that the suit land had already been transferred by way of exchange in favour of Bhagat Ram. Smt. Thakri Devi filed an execution petition in the Court without impleading the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs as a party. The warrant of possession was issued vide order dated 6.7.1971. Rapat No. 183 dated 7.12.1971 was prepared by Halqua Patwari. Mutation No. 782 was attested. After the death of Smt. Thakri Devi, defendants No. 1 & 2 Sh. Khimatu and Shamsher Singh procured mutation No. 977 in respect of the suit land in their favour. The plaintiffs, have thus claimed decree of declaration, to the effect that they were owners -in -possession of the suit land and defendants No. 1 & 2 be restrained from interfering in their possession over the suit land comprised in Kh. Nos. 701 and 702 and 1/3 share in Kh. No. 39.

(3.) JEET Ram, in his written statement, has admitted that he had exchanged the suit land with Bhagat Ram and defendant No. 13 Dola Ram. However, he has pleaded that he was owner of Kh. No. 260 only to the extent of 1/2 share and he has given only this share in exchange to Dola Ram who in lieu thereof had given to him 11/14 share of Kh. No. 18. He has admitted about the compromise decree. He has denied that he had hatched conspiracy with Smt. Thakri Devi.