RAM DEI Vs. KALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, rendered on 1.7.2003, in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1995, by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, H.P., whereby, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the allegations that both the parties had been joint owners in possession of land described in Khata/Khatoni No. 263/383, Khasra No. 87, measuring 3 -18 bighas situated in revenue estate, Chhat, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The plaintiffs were stated to be owners of 1/2 share of the suit land. The defendants were stated to be owners of the remaining 1/2 share of the suit land. The defendants stated to be in connivance with the officials of the revenue department had manipulated reduction of the share of the plaintiffs from 1/2 to 1/4th. The share of the defendants had been increased from 1/2 to 3/4th. It is stated that the change of entries of the books of the Collector relating to the share of the parties was wrong, illegal and void. On the strength of the wrong and illegal entries of the suit land, the defendants had applied for partition of the suit land. The A.C. 1st Grade, Ghumarwin vide order dated 2.5.1987 had proceeded to partition the suit land. The plaintiffs were being allotted 1/4th share of the suit land. The order dated 2.5.1987 passed by A.C. 1st Grade was stated to be wrong, illegal and void. The plaintiffs had instituted the appeal against the order dated 2.5.1987 passed by A.C. 1st Grade before the Collector. The appeal of the plaintiffs had been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 13.6.1988. It is stated that the orders dated 2.5.1987 and 13.6.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and Collector respectively were wrong, illegal and void. The defendants were sought to be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs of 1/2 share of the suit land by issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction. With these allegations, the plaintiffs had instituted the suit in the Court below on 15.1.1990.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter -se the parties in contest: -