DALIP SINGH AND ORS Vs. MALKAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 24.5.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1990, whereby he partly reversed the judgement and decree passed by learned trial court dated 26.4.1990 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff claimed herself to be the owner in possession of the land entered in Khata No.6min, Khatoni Nos. 7 and 8, old Khasra No. 578/140min, new Khasra No. 156min, 156min, measuring 15K-1M to the extent of half share measuring 7K-10M, situated in Tika Sarehri, Mouza Galore, Tehsil Nadau, Distt. Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). According to her, Sh. Salig Ram is the owner of the remaining half of the suit land. The land previously was in the ownership of one Shri Rup Singh, who was unheard of and as such, mutation of succession was sanctioned in the name of his sister, Smt. Gaurju Devi.

(3.) It was alleged that said Smt. Gaurju Devi gifted away the suit land to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit land. The nature of the suit land is "Kharetar" and she is cutting grass therefrom. The defendant has however managed the entries so as to he is in possession of the suit land in connivance with the revenue staff. Such entries are stated to be without any jurisdiction and behind her back, hence not binding on her. It is she who is in possession of the suit land and the defendant is not in possession thereof. He, however, started causing interference for the first time in November, 1986 and also proclaimed that he will occupy the suit land. On this, she obtained the copy of the entries in the revenue record so as to the suit land is concerned and came to know about such wrong entries showing the defendant in possession of the suit land on 19.11.1986. She requested the defendant not to interfere in her possession over the suit land and also to get the entries corrected, but of no avail, hence the suit for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit land in any manner whatsoever and in case she is not found in possession thereof, in that event, the decree for possession of the suit land has also been sought.