ROOP SINGH Vs. DILA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2015 rendered by the District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 33/2014.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants' for convenience sake). According to the averments contained in the plaint, land comprised in Khewat No. 456, Khatauni No. 527, Khasra No. 1151 measuring 00-09-07 bighas situated in Muhal Nagchalla Hadbast No. 219, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. was shown in the ownership and possession of late Sh. Durga. Out of the suit land, Khasra No. 1151/1 measuring 00-05-00 bighas was shown to be alienated in favour of defendant No. 7. Previously, Khasra number of suit land was 1270 and was recorded in the joint ownership of Sh. Gurdayal and Smt. Dassi etc. and was in possession of Mithnu, father of the plaintiff. The possession of Mithnu was recorded in the revenue record as "Bila Lagaan Ba Wazah Shinazori". Smt. Dassi, one of the co-owners, out of her 1/4th share in the joint land measuring 5-01-19 bighas, sold land measuring 00-09-07 bighas to Durga, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6, vide registered sale deed dated 20.4.1977. She was not competent to alienate or transfer the suit land in favour of Durga, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6. The mutation was attested in favour of Durga on 22.4.1993. An appeal was preferred against the mutation before the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 8.1.2007. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 23.8.2010. According to the plaintiff, Mithnu was encroacher of the suit land since 1.1.1950 and has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession since his possession was open, continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile to the knowledge of owners.

(3.) Suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 by filing separate written statement. According to them, the entries in the Jamabandi showing Mithnu as "Bila Lagaan Ba Wazah Shinazori" are wrong, incorrect and illegal. Smt. Dassi sold her 1/4th share in favour of Sh. Durga vide registered sale deed. The possession was handed over to Durga. It is denied that Mithnu was in possession as encroacher over the suit land since 1.1.1950.