INDER DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Paragraph 32 of Himachal Pradesh Courts Order is directed against the decree and judgment dated 4 -12 -1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla whereby the decree and judgment dated 14 -6 -1978 of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla was confirmed and the suit of appellant -plaintiff Inder Dass was dismissed.

(2.) The subject -matter of the litigation between the parties is and measuring 11 biswas, comprised in Khasra No 275/2, situate in Chak Shathala, Pargna Kothi -Kotgarh, Sub -Tehsil Kumarsain District Shimla (hereinafter called the land in dispute). For it suit was filed by Inder Dass as far back as on 30 -12 -1972 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent -defendant State of Himachal Pradesh from interfering in his possession, which according to him was of half a century old, since his fore -fathers. Inder Dass claimed that he was using the land in dispute as his courtyard, he had constructed kitchen and planted ten apple trees therein para 5 of his plaint his averments are that: - "The defendant and its officials never objected to the construction of the kitchen and planting of the trees on the land. The plaintiffs action and the possession was open, visible as an owner and hostile to the knowledge of the defendant. Now the defendant is estopped from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff." According to Inder Dass, cause of action arose to him when proceedings under section 163 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) were held against him ia which eviction order was passed ; his appeal against the eviction order was dismissed and respondent -defendant No. 1 tried to dispossess him from the land in dispute

(3.) The suit was resisted by the respondent -defendant No. 1 and others who filed separate written statements. Their main contention was that Inder Dass had no right, title or interest over the land in dispute and he was rightly being dispossessed in pursuance of the eviction order passed under section 163 of the Act. They have pointed out that the land in dispute is part of Khasra No. 275, which is recorded as Charand and in possession of right -holders.