WATTANA AND ORS. Vs. KESAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants -appellants Shri Wattana, Smt. Trishala Devi and Harmesh, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2006, passed by Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 90/2005, titled as Kesar v/s. Wattana and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 11.3.2002, passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 277/92, titled as Kesar v/s. Wattana and others, stands reversed. Appeal stands admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The issue, which arises for consideration, is as to who is in possession of the suit land. By relying upon the statement of the plaintiff, so recorded on 14.7.1989 (Ex. DW -4/A) before the Land Reforms Officer, trial Court held the defendant to be in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the lower Appellate Court, finding such statement not to be recorded before a competent authority, could not persuade itself to be bound by the same in returning findings favoring the plaintiff, holding him to be in possession of the suit land. In Paras 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment, lower Appellate Court has also assigned other reasons, based on documentary evidence, i.e. revenue record (Ex. P -1, P -2, P -3 & P -4).

(3.) Noticeably, statement (Ex. DW -4/A) was recorded in the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar -cum -Land Reforms Officer, so initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff. No doubt, in the said proceedings, plaintiff admitted the defendants to be in possession of the suit land, but significantly this statement was recorded on 14.7.1989 whereas the plaint in question was filed in the year 1992. In the interregnum possession remained with the defendant is what he has failed to establish.