ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the defendants/appellants against the impugned rendition of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendants/appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the latter Court rendered a decree for declaration qua the plaintiff being owner in possession of suit land comprised in Khata No.238, Khataoni Nos. 418, 419, 429, khasra Nos. 1433/1221, 1458/1226, 1435/1227, 373 and 361, kita 5, Measuring 0-56-29 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauja Nandehar, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P., with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the above said suit land in any manner whatsoever. The defendants/appellants herein stands aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge,.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed that he is owner in possession of the land comprising Khata No.238, Khataoni Nos. 418, 419, 429, khasra Nos. 1433/1221, 1458/1226, 1435/1227, 373 and 361, kita 5, Measuring 0-56-29 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauja Nandehar, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. and the defendants have got nothing to do with this land, whereas the defendants are threatening to take forcible possession to cut the trees etc, if not restrained they would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and have filed written statement. They have submitted that the suit land was under the tenancy of predecessor-in-interest of defendants and they have become owners qua it after coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. No resumption of any part of the suit land was effected in favour of the previous owner nor the owner had also any authority or title to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff had no cause of action and locus standi to seek relief of injunction and declaration.