BAKSHI AND ORS. Vs. NAZAR BEG AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants, who have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 4/2011 whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 215/10/03.

(2.) THE brief facts may be noticed thus: the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration on the plea that they are owners in possession of the property comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 64/85, Khasra No. 564, measuring 03 -00 -00 bighas, situated in mauza Nanori, Pargana Bhadnota, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) which is in the shape of "Gair Mumkin Makan". It was averred that the defendant had approached the plaintiffs and requested them to allow her to stay in the suit property since she had no house to live or means to construct a house for herself and her family and taking pity on the defendant, the plaintiffs accepted the request and allowed the defendant to stay in the suit property without any rent till she would not be in a position to construct the house. It was further averred that the defendant proved to be a clever lady since in connivance with the revenue officials, she got herself entered in the column of cultivation as 'DAVEDAR BAI' behind their back and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs which is wrong and illegal.

(3.) THE defendants contested and resisted the suit filed by the plaintiffs by filing written statement wherein the defendants raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and the suit being not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was averred that there are two houses in Khasra No. 564 which are in existence for the last 40 and 20 years respectively. It was further averred that the long standing entries in the revenue papers go to show that she (defendant) is owner in possession of the suit property as the plaintiffs were fully aware of the revenue entries but they have not challenged those entries and the rest of the contents of the plaint were denied in toto. However, it was admitted that the mutation in favour of the defendant was cancelled.