ROSHAN LAL Vs. KRISHAN ALIAS KRISHNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 10/4/2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (The 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 and mandatory injunction against the defendants. It was asserted that the land comprised in Khewat No.34, Khatauni No.50, Khasra Nos. 1001 and 1002 Kita-2 measuring 74.00 square metres situated at Muhal Ropa 26/1, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') is owned by the plaintiff. Two shops existed on the ground floor and three rooms existed behind the shops. Four rooms were constructed by the plaintiff on the first floor. Hirdu Ram was the real uncle of the plaintiff. He demolished his old house in the year 1999 to construct a new house. Since, he had no house to live in, the house located on the suit land was given to him for residential purposes. The defendants filed an application for correction of the revenue entry in the year 2000. The Assistant Collector Grade-II passed an order in their favour on 7/3/2002. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Sub-Divisional Collector, which was allowed and the order was set aside by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the possession of the house, but the defendants refused to do so. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking possession.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement denying the contents of the plaint. It was asserted that the entries of ownership in the name of the plaintiff were wrong. The defendants are in open, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession of the suit land since 1971 to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendants have perfected their title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The structure on the suit land originally consisted of one shop of 10x15 feet size in front and two small rooms in the back side constructed by one Sh. Gwainu, maternal uncle of the plaintiff. He sold the same to the defendants for a sum of ? 60,000/- in the year 1971. The defendants are in possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the plaintiff. They made substantial improvements, additions and alterations in the structure by constructing the first floor, rebuilding the back structure and replacing the old lintel, doors and fixtures. The plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct. The entries in favour of the possession were rightly made by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.