MAHAJAN Vs. BASANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2001 rendered by the learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2000.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration against the respondent -defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake) to the effect that defendant No. 1 Smt. Basanti was not the daughter of Purshotam and mutation dated 6.4.1996 of the land detailed in the plaint situated in Mohal Dauni Pargana Tissa, District Chamba was wrong, illegal and inoperative. The relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also claimed for restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The suit land was recorded in the revenue record in joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants together with Purshotam son of Dharam Dass, who was the real brother of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Purshotam died issueless on 18.3.1995. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Basanti and Gopala in connivance with the Secretary Panchayat and the revenue officials got prepared a false Pariwar register of house No. 77 of village Sagloga. They also got the suit land mutated in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was not the daughter of Purshotam. Mutation qua inheritance of Purshotam could not be attested in her favour. Plaintiff has also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land as heir of Purshotam deceased. Purshotam has left the possession of the suit land since the year 1964. The land was in possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. They have become owners by acquiring title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) ISSUES were framed by the Sub Judge on 26.2.1998. He dismissed the suit on 28.3.2000. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Chamba. He also dismissed the appeal on 20.3.2001. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 7.12.2001: