SUKH DEV Vs. KISHAN CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 18.3.2002 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge Una (H.P.) in Civil Appeal (RBT) No. 198/2K/97.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction and in the alternative, for possession, against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, land measuring 0-07-92 Hectares bearing Khewat No. 188, Khatauni No. 392, Khasra No. 605 as entered in Misal Hakiat Ishtemal for the year 1991-92 was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants had no right, title or interest over the suit land and entries in the revenue record in favour of defendant No. 1 as owner-in-possession were wrong, illegal and void. Judgment and decree dated 7.1.1978 rendered by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, HP passed in Civil Suit No. 228/1976 titled as Sukh Dev v. Labhu and in Civil Appeal No. 47/1978 dated 26.2.1980 of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Una were not binding upon the plaintiff. It is also averred in the plaint that Smt. Nanki widow of Dhaula was the original owner of the suit land and she was a distant relative of the plaintiff. She had executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiff about her property and after the death of Nanki, property was inherited by the plaintiff. Mutation No. 780 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 8.1.1976, and after the death of Nanki Devi, plaintiff had become owner of the suit land. It was further averred that plaintiff was minor at the time of death of Nanki and defendant No. 1 taking undue advantage of the minority of plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 228/1976 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff. In the said case, mother of the plaintiff, Mansho Devi was appointed as guardian of plaintiff who was minor in the year 1976. Mother of plaintiff took no interest in the said suit and she acted in a highly negligent manner. Appointment of said Mansho Devi as guardian of plaintiff was not in accordance with law and same was illegal and as such plaintiff was not bound by the decision dated 7.1.1978 in the Civil Suit and judgment and decree in Appeal No. 47/1978 rendered by the District Judge, Hamirpur at Una on 26.2.1980.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, suit was contested by the mother of the plaintiff. She had no adverse interests to that of the interests of the plaintiff. They supported the mutation No. 990 dated 10.9.1982.