RAMA NAND Vs. MULMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. dated 26.10.2006, passed in Civil Appeal No. 37 -S/13 of 2006. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the plaintiff, she was exclusive owner -in -possession of the land comprised in Kh. No. 401 measuring 0 -10 -33 hectares, situated at Chak Purag, sub Chak Jamuni. She has raised an apple orchard on the land and defendant was trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant. On merits, the defendant pleaded that in connivance with the settlement staff, the plaintiff got herself recorded in possession over Kh. No. 400 and suit land comprised in Kh. No. 401. The revenue entries were alleged to be wrong. The plaintiff has not raised any orchard over the suit land. He was granted suit land in Nautor by the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was wrongly shown in possession of the plaintiff. He has also taken the plea of adverse possession.

(3.) The learned trial Court framed the issues on 13.9.2004. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 28.3.2006. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006. The learned District Judge, Shimla, dismissed the appeal on 26.10.2006. Hence, this regular second appeal.