BIMAL KUMAR Vs. SANJOGITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 27/4/2022, passed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before learned Trial Court) against the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Baijnath (learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the land comprised in Khata No. 280, Khatauni Nos. 347 and 348, Khasra Nos. 869/805/571 and 868/805/571, Kita-2, measuring 0/2/8 hectares, situated in Mohal Gankhetar, Mauja and Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was asserted that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land. The husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 were wrongly recorded to be in possession of Khasra No. 868/805/871, measuring 0/0/80 hectares. This entry was recorded based on the order passed in a correction application. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Financial Commissioner, who set aside the order of learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dtd. 21/7/2004 as well as order dtd. 28/5/2008 passed by learned Collector. The case was remanded to learned Assistant Collector, 1 st Grade, Baijnath for a fresh decision. The defendants are strangers. They have no right, title or interest to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. They were requested not to do so but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, the plaintiff being estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct, the suit being barred by the principle of res-judicata, and plaintiff having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the Court had decided Issue No. 1A and 2 in favour of the defendants and the order passed by the Revenue authorities will have no effect on the issues. The plaintiff concealed the judgment and decree dtd. 19/1/2023 from the Revenue authorities and the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner has no value. The revenue entries were updated through Mutation No. 666, dtd. 25/2/2017. The predecessor-in-interest of defendant Jyoti Prakash who is the real brother of plaintiff got equal rights. The defendants are in possession of a dilapidated kachha one room on the part of the suit land. The suit was filed without any basis.