BAKSHI RAM Vs. JULFI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, rendered on 21.12.2001 by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993, whereby, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents and reversed the findings of the learned trial Court rendered on 19.12.1992 in Civil Suit No. 41 of 1988.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the suit land comprised in khata No. 3 min, Khatauni No. 4 min, khasra No. 181 and 193, measuring 7 Kanals and 9 Marlas is stated to shown in the names of defendants No. 7 to 11 and as per the further entries, mutation No. 192 thereof has been shown to be entered on the basis of the sale thereof by defendants No. 7 to 9 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5. According to the plaintiffs, previously, a civil suit was filed by defendants No. 7 to 9 against them. The dispute therein was so as to the cultivation of the suit land. The suit was decreed in favour of the defendants No. 7 to 9. The plaintiffs, however, filed Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1983 in the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur and the same was decided on 20.8.1984. As a matter of fact, it is the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2, who were stated to be cultivating the suit land as tenant -at -will under the previous owners Mansha Ram and others in equal shares. During the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1983 in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur, a compromise was arrived at in between the parties. The statements of the previous owners Bihari Lal, Suresh Kumar, Asha Devi, Mansha Ram and Khazana Ram etc., were recorded. The statements of the plaintiffs as well as that of defendants No. 1 and 2 were also recorded regarding the compromise. As per the compromise, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 have paid money to the previous owners Mansha Ram etc. The defendants No. 1 and 2 thus because owners qua their share in the suit land which was in their possession i.e. half of the suit land, whereas the plaintiffs came to be in possession of the remaining half share i.e. measuring 3 Kanal and 15 Marlas till date, to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiffs came to know for the first time in the month of May, 1987 that their names have not been entered in the revenue record and that there exists an entry with respect to Mutation No. 192 qua the suit land. It is in the month of June, 1987, the defendants No. 1 to 6 started causing interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land at the pretext that the same was purchased by them from defendants No. 7 to 11. As per further case of the plaintiffs, as a matter of fact, the said defendants had left with no title in the suit land after the decision of Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1983 vide judgment dated 20.8.1984. The said judgment was binding on the defendants. Thus, any sale of the suit land after the decision of the aforesaid appeal, according to them, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Mutation No. 192 entered on the basis thereof is also claimed to be void. It has also been submitted that no interference in their possession has been caused by defendants No. 7 to 11, however, it is defendants No. 1 to 6 who are interfering in the suit land. The plaintiffs even requested the said defendants to get the entries with respect to the suit land corrected and even notices were also served upon them, but of no avail. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have also paid the money in lieu of the price of the suit land in their share. The defendants have thus no legal right to cause any sort of interference therein. In view of this back drop, the plaintiffs have sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 6 from causing any sort of interference over the suit land.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 6 in his separate written statement has also raised the preliminary objections so as to the suit is not maintainable, barred by limitation, there exists no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs to file the suit and that since he as well as his brothers are bona fide purchaser under registered sale deed dated 22.8.1983 in respect of the suit land and as such, the compromise, if any, arrived at between the plaintiffs and previous owner, is not binding upon them. Also that he as well as his two brothers have spent a sum of Rs. 9000/ - for the improvement of the suit land. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff is estopped by his acts, deeds and conduct from filing the present suit. On merits, defendant No. 6 has offered denial to the averments in the plaint.