DEVTA GOHARI Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 22.8.1994, of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, and raise similar questions of law and, hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of the two appeals may be noticed. Krishan Lal and Om Parkash Sharma, respondents No.1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? and 2, respectively (in RSA No.400/1994), hereinafter called plaintiffs, filed a suit against Devta Gohari, appellant (in RSA No.400/1994), hereinafter called defendant No.3, and Maya Ram and Mohan Dass, proforma respondents (in RSA No.400/1994), hereinafter called defendants No.1 and 2, respectively, pleading the following cause of action.

(3.) SUIT was contested by defendant No.1 Maya Ram as also by defendant No.3 Devta Gohari (appellant In RSA No.400/1994). Maya Ram alleged that he was the tenant under the Devta. He denied that he was inducted as tenant in the Khokha by defendant No.2 Mohan Dass. It was also denied that defendant No.3 had inducted Mohan Dass as tenant on the land on which Khokha stands and that Mohan Dass constructed the Khokha. Devta Gohari, defendant No.3 and now appellant in RSA No.400 of 1994, also denied that the land underneath the Khokha was leased out to Mohan Dass defendant No.2 or the Khokha was constructed by the said defendant. It was alleged that the Khokha had been constructed by defendant No.3-appellant (in RSA No.400/1994) itself and it was leased out to defendant No.1 Maya Ram.