RAM DITTU Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred before this Court by the plaintiffs, who stand aggrieved by the rendition of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appeal instituted before him by the defendants/respondents herein against the judgement and decree of the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Bilaspur, whereby the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Bilaspur, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration as well as for permanent injunction qua the suit land, stood accepted. Besides, the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, while accepting the appeal preferred before him by the defendants/respondents had also reversed the decree of possession qua possession accorded in favour of the plaintiff/appellant by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur qua possession of Khasra No. 115 measuring 0 -1 biswas.

(2.) THE facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiff Ram Dittu on 18.11.1992 had instituted a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No. 1 to 4 in the Court below on the allegations that one Shri Lachhman son of Shri Hiru had been owner in possession of land described in Khewat/Khatoni No. 69/84, Khasra No. 118, 119, 136, 141, 152, 454, 115, 139, measuring 3 -5 bighas situated in revenue estate Dhabeta, Pargana Fatehpur, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur. Shri Lachhman on 3.5.1985 in sound disposing state of mind and body had executed his last and final Will Ext.PA of his estate in favour of the plaintiff. Shri Lachhman had died on 10.8.1992. After the death of Shri Lachhman, the plaintiff had been owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant No. 3 Ram Murti, in collusion with officials of the revenue department, had got himself recorded in possession of Khasra No. 115, measuring 0 -1 biswa. In the books of Collector, it had been recorded that Shri Lachhman had gifted Khasra No. 115 in favour of defendant No. 3. The gift is contended to be illegal and without jurisdiction as the value of Khasra No. 115 was Rs. 50,000/ -. In collusion with defendants No. 1, 2 and 4, the defendant No. 3 wanted to grab the suit land. The defendant No. 3 had started representing that defendants No. 1 and 2 were legal heirs of Shri Lachhman. The defendant No. 3 was stated to be carrying much influence. The plaintiff was a poor person. The Tehsildar had refused to sanction the mutation of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of registered Will Ext.PA. The defendants No. 1 to 4 had started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. The plaintiff had sought declaration of his ownership and possession of the suit land. The defendants No. 1 to 4 were sought to be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff of the suit land by issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction. Alternatively, the plaintiff had sought relief of possession.

(3.) THE plaintiff had filed written statement to the counter claim of defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff had also filed replication to the written statement of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and had reiterated his ownership and possession of the suit land on the strength of registered Will of 3.5.1985 Ext.PA. Sh. Lachhman had not revocated the Will.