JOGINDER PAUL AND ORS. Vs. GAURI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2006 of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2005.

(2.) KEY facts, necessary for the adjudication of this second appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for the convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration against the appellants -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants, for the convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, the suit land was owned and possessed by Vidya Devi widow of late Sh. Bhaskara Nand till her death. Upon the death of Vidya Devi, the plaintiff and Kedar Nath, the predecessor -in -interest of the defendants, succeeded to her estate in equal share being her next reversioners. However, Kedar Nath predecessor -in -interest of the defendants, in collusion with Revenue Officer, got proprietary rights of the suit land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, conferred in his name vide mutation No. 548 dated 10.9.1982. These entries and mutation were without jurisdiction, null and void because Kedar Nath was never inducted as tenant at will. Some dispute arose between the plaintiff and Kedar Nath in the year 1992 with regard to use and occupation of the suit land. Defendant No. 1, being the Karta of the joint Hindu family, agreed to make necessary correction in the revenue papers regarding the possession and ownership of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land and executed affidavit on 9.9.1992. The plaintiff asked the defendants time and again to admit the claim of the plaintiff regarding suit land and make correction in the revenue record qua ownership and possession of the plaintiff but the defendants did not pay any heed to the request. In these circumstances, the civil suit was filed.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the replication. The issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 9.6.2003. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Hamirpur, decreed the suit on 12.1.2005. The defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2005 before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the same on 7.6.2006, hence this regular second appeal.