RATTAN LAL Vs. ALAXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Respondent Alaxander, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed a suit against the present appellant, seeking a declaration that he was joint owner to the extent of 3 Biswas of land bearing Khasra No. 954/831/784/125, which was sold to his mother by Shiv Lal and also sought issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellant- defendant from interfering in his possession. Appellant- defendant, Rattan Lal, filed a cross suit, seeking a declaration that he was owner in possession of 14 Biswas area, out of khasra No. 954/831/784/125, and also sought an injunction, restraining the respondent- plaintiff from causing any interference in his possession over 14 Biswas area.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be stated thus. One Shiv Lal was owner in possession of land measuring 1 Bigha 9 Biswas bearing khasra No. 954/831/784/125. Out of this area, he sold 3 Biswas area to the mother of respondent Alaxander, in the year 1976, through a sale- deed. In January, 1978, 15 Biswas area out of the aforesaid khasra number was acquired by the State Government. The entire compensation amount was received by Shiv Lal. In May, 1978, Shiv Lal, made a gift in respect of the remaining area of the aforesaid khasra number. In the year 1983, Smt. Dropti made a sale in favour of the appellant- defendant Rattan Lal with regard to the area that was gifted to her and in the sale-deed the extent of the area was written as 14 Biswas. Mutation was also attested with regard to 14 Biswas of area in favour of Rattan Lal. As a matter of fact, after the sale of 3 Biswas area was made in favour of Alaxander's mother and 15 Biswas area had been acquired by the State Government, only 11 Biswas area had been left with Shiv Lal, and therefore, the gift was to be treated only in respect of 11 Biswas area.

(3.) APPEALS preferred by the appellant against the decree of dismissal of his own suit and the decreeing of the suit of the respondent, stand dismissed by the District Judge. Now the defendant has come in appeal to this Court.