PARMODH SINGH Vs. BILWAMANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2001 rendered by the Additional District Judge (1) Kangra at Dharmashala in Civil Appeal No. 97 -K/98.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that predecessor -in -interest of respondent -plaintiff, Sandhya Devi (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and in the alternative for possession against the appellants -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants" for convenience sake). The suit was filed to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and entries of tenancy in favour of defendants in the revenue record were wrong, illegal and unauthorized. The defendants or their predecessors were never inducted as tenant by the plaintiff. The suit land was under mortgage and redeemed by the plaintiff vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 27 dated 18.9.1992 on the basis of order of Senior Sub Judge, Dharamshala. In the alternative, plaintiff also prayed that in case it was found that plaintiff is not entitled to the decree as per prayer "A" then he be granted a decree for possession in respect of the suit land. The suit land was under mortgage with mortgagee and the same was got redeemed vide judgment dated 31.7.1991 rendered by the Senior Sub Judge, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 158/74. The possession was also delivered to the plaintiff on 18.9.1992 by the Senior Sub Judge, Dharamshala on the spot vide rapat roznamcha No. 27. Mutation No. 417 was entered to this effect. Neither the defendants nor their ancestors were inducted as tenant, hence, the entry of tenancy after redemption of the mortgage was stated to be wrong, illegal and null void.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication. Sub -Judge 1st Class framed issues on 3.12.1993. The suit was decreed by the Sub -Judge 1st Class on 20.8.1998. Defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1998 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmashala. He dismissed the same on 3.4.2001. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 20.8.2001.