KANAHYA LAL Vs. KIRPA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Solan, dated 14.11.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 31 -S/13 of 2003.

(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 against the predecessor -in -interest Sh. Nathu Ram of respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), Beli Ram, Kala, Shalu and Gorkhu. The predecessor -in -interest died during the pendency of the suit before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, thus his legal representatives, namely, Beli Ram, Kala, Shalu and Gorkhu were brought on record. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land comprised in Kh. No. 92 measuring 2 -15 bighas situated in Mauja Dehal, Pargana Haripur, Tehsil and Distt. Solan, H.P. The plaintiffs have claimed to be the joint owners in possession of the suit land with defendant No. 1 Nathu Ram to the extent of 1/2 share of land. The land was never partitioned, however, defendant Nathu Ram predecessor -in -interest of defendants, namely, Beli Ram, Kala, Shalu and Gorkhu, in connivance with the revenue staff have sold the suit land exceeding to his share to defendant No. 2 Sh. Kirpa Ram, vide sale deed No. 100 dated 1.3.1983. The mutation was attested on 28.4.1983. The plaintiffs have also pleaded and claimed that the defendants have no right, title to change the nature of the suit land and claimed joint possession with defendant No. 2, to the extent of his share.

(3.) THE replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, framed the issues on 2.5.1997. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, decreed the suit on 26.9.2002. The defendant Kirpa Ram preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2002 before the learned District Judge, Solan. The learned District Judge, Solan, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree vide judgment dated 14.11.2003. Hence, this regular second appeal.