KHUB RAM Vs. BHIM DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who were defendants No.4 and 5, before the trial Court, have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 70/1990 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1990 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti District at Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 120 of 1988.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Chepri Devi, filed a suit for possession, declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction that her husband Shobhu was the owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.764, Khata -Khatauni No.187/264, measuring 8 -15 -0 bighas, situate in Mauza Fatehpur, Phati Mohni, District Kullu to the extent of half share denoted by (A) in the head note of the plaint and also owner in possession of a two -storeyed house along with 11/2 storeyed shed meant for storing grass etc. to the extent of half share as shown by (B) in the head note of plaint, situate in Khasra No. 764. It was averred that after the death of Shobhu in the year 1980, the plaintiff Chepri succeeded her husband as his sole heir, however, about two years prior to the filing of the suit, the appellants started forcibly cultivating the land denoted by letter (A) in the head note of the plaint and also threatened to dispossess her forcibly from the house denoted by letter (B). It was also alleged that on inquiry from the Patwari, it was revealed that defendants -respondents No.2 and 3 namely Sairu and Manglu, respectively, got the mutation of inheritance of Shobhu attested in their favour along with their sister Tulli at the back of the plaintiff -respondent No.1. After mutation was attested, Smt. Tulli bequeathed her share in the land to respondent -defendant Manglu and said Manglu sold his share to one Shamsher Singh in the suit land vide sale deed Ext.DW5/A. Further, Shamsher Singh sold such purchased share to the appellants vide sale deed Ex.D3. Sairu originally arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit executed gift deed Ex.D2 of his share in favour of defendant -appellant Thakur Dass. It was averred that since the defendants Sairu and Manglu as well as Tulli could not inherit the suit property, all the transactions made by them in favour of the defendant Shamsher Singh and appellants are illegal, void and without any right or title and are not binding on the plaintiff -respondent. As per plaintiff, she asked defendants -appellants time and again to admit her claim regarding her being the sole owner of the aforesaid property, but they refused to do so. Hence, suit was filed by the plaintiff -respondent that she is entitled to possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.764 to the extent of her share and that she being in possession of the house property, the appellants be restrained from interfering in her ownership and possession over the same by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.

(3.) REPLICATIONS to the written statements were filed by the plaintiff -respondent and allegations contained in the written statements were controverted and those contained in the plaint wer e reasserted.