CHAND Vs. AMKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the plaintiffs and have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1999.

(2.) THE brief facts, as necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction as consequential relief as against the defendants. The suit was originally filed by Rothal, predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs, hereinafter also referred to as plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that land in suit comprised in khasra numbers 202, 203, 210 and 210/1 measuring 14 -14 -16 bighas situated in village Patha was exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the entries to the contrary showing defendants as joint co -sharers in possession with the plaintiff of this land are wrong and illegal. It was alleged by the plaintiff that land in suit was part and parcel of the total land measuring 87 -12 -18 bighas and plaintiff was exclusive occupancy tenant in possession of 1/6th share out of the total land i.e. suit land. It was further alleged that plaintiff purchased right, title and interest of the land owners in the suit land for which mutation No. 2 dated 28.9.1964 was duly attested by A.C. IInd Grade and plaintiff became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land.

(3.) THE defendants resisted and contested the suit. They took up preliminary objections in regard to maintainability and limitation etc. On merits, they denied that plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land as owner. They admitted that suit land was part and parcel of total land measuring 87 -112 -18 bigha but it was denied that the plaintiff was exclusive occupancy tenant in possession of 1/6th share out of the total land. Defendants pleaded that plaintiff and defendants were joint occupancy tenants in possession of 1/6th share out of the total land till acquisition of proprietary rights. The plaintiff had only purchased ownership rights but not occupancy rights which remained with the plaintiff and defendants. Mutation No. 2 dated 28.9.1964 was attested concerning ownership rights without disturbing the status of the plaintiff and defendants as joint occupancy tenants in possession. Thus it was pleaded that since defendants were continuing in joint possession and proprietary rights also conferred upon the parties and land has been allotted illegally by the consolidation staff. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him.