DAULAT RAM Vs. HUMA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, against a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, has arisen out of a suit, instituted by Huma Nand respondent, against the appellants and Bishan Lal respondent, for possession of land and buildings, standing thereon, situate in village Badah, Tehsil Kasumpti, District Mahasu and for the recovery of Rs. 1200/-, as mesne profits, and, in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 5200/-. The suit was based on the following allegations :

(2.) The property, in suit, belonged to Bishan Lal respondent. He had sold it to Huma Nand respondent, for the sale price of Rs. 4000/-, by a registered sale- deed, dated 18th March 1960. One of the conditions of the sale was that the vendor was bound to deliver vacant possession of the property sold, to the vendee. But Huma Nand respondent could get possession of half the building only. The rest of the property was in the unlawful possession of the appellants. Daulat Ram appellant had made an application, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, before the Compensation Officer, Mahasu, for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land, in suit. His application was dismissed. The Compensation Officer held that Daulat Ram had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the land. An appeal, by Daulat Ram, to the District Judge, Mahasu, failed. The District Judge affirmed the finding of the Compensation Officer that Daulat Ram appellant had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the land. Despite the rejection of the application and the appeal, the appellants continued to be in unlawful possession of the property and refused to deliver possession. Huma Nand respondent filed a suit, praying that he be put in possession of the property and granted a decree for Rs. 1200/-, as mesne profits for the unlawful possession of the property, by the appellants. There was an alternative prayer, in the suit, that in case, it be found, that the appellants were not liable to be ejected from, and to deliver possession of, the property, then a decree for Rs. 5200/-- Rs 4000/- the sale consideration and Rs. 1200/- as damages-be passed in favour of Huma Nand, against Bishan Lal, respondent.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants. Though they had filed separate written statements, yet the pleas, taken up, were substantially the same. The main plea of the appellants, which is relevant for the decision of the present appeal, was that Daulat Ram appellant was in lawful possession of the pro perty, in suit, as a tenant and was not liable to be ejected and that Chet Ram appellant was neither in possession of the property nor had he any concern with it. It was not denied that the application of Daulat Ram appellant, for acquisition of proprietary rights, was dismissed, by the Compensation Officer and an appeal, against that decision, was dismissed by the District Judge.