UJJAGAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. dated 27.2.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 43-N/13 of 2001/2000.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed a suit for declaration against the appellant-defendant No. 1 and proforma defendants No. 5 & 6 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) to the effect that they are owners-in-possession of land comprised in Kh. No. 129/19, measuring 4-10 bighas, Khewat No. 9, Khatauni No. 13, as entered in copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91, situated at village Nihal Garh, Tehsil Paonta Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the entries in favour of the defendants to the contrary are illegal and void. In the alternative, the plaintiffs also sought a decree for possession. The suit land was a part of Kh. No. 19 measuring 24 bighas 19 biswas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71. However, when the plaintiffs tried to cultivate a part of the land in Kh. No. 19, they were obstructed and defendant No. 1, namely, Ujjagar Singh declared that the plaintiffs were not the owners. They obtained the revenue record. The plaintiffs discovered that defendant No. 1 has got himself recorded over the suit land which entry was void. They also discovered that defendant No.1 in connivance with the revenue staff had got sanctioned mutation of exchange on 15.7.1975 No. 334 based upon some imaginary transaction in lieu of some land at Village Amarkot. The mutation was sanctioned behind the back of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs had no land at Village Amarkot on 15.7.1975 and land in Khewat No. 18, Khatauni No. 47, Kh. No. 152/31 measuring 4-10 bighas as entered in jamabandi for the year 1991-92 at Amarkot was not in their ownership and possession and as such the entries have been manipulated by defendant No. 1.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No. 1. According to the averments made in the written statement, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs were well aware of the entries in the record made in the year 1975. They were in possession of the land measuring 4-10 bighas at Village Amarkot comprised in Kh. No. 31, which now is the land comprised in Kh. No. 152/31 which was given to them by him in exchange vide mutation No. 200 dated 28.7.1975 in lieu of suit land comprised in Kh. No. 129/19 given to him by the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 334 dated 28.7.1975. Both the mutations No. 334 and 200 were attested by the revenue officer Sh. C.M. Rewal, in presence of parties and thus the suit was barred by limitation. They have also become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement. According to the averments made in the written statement, the suit land in the name of defendant No. 1 was illegal and void which was not binding on the plaintiffs or upon him.