TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND Vs. RIPUDAMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal stands directed against the impugned rendition of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby he reversed the decree of dismissal of suit of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff had claimed a decree for declaring valid the order pronounced by the Assistant Collecto 2nd Grade, Nadaun, whereby under the latters' orders mutation stood attested qua the suit property, orders whereof recorded by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun stood anvilled on a compromise decree comprised in Ext.P-1, orders whereof recorded by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun, stood rescinded by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nadaun, orders whereof of the Sub Divisional Collector, Nadaun, attained affirmation from the Divisional Commissioner under the latters' orders recorded on 6.8.1992, latter orders whereof stand canvassed to be declared to be null and void. The effect of the judgement of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur pronounced in reversal to the verdict of the learned trial Court is qua mutation qua the suit property attested on 10.02.1983 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun, on anvil of Ext.P-1 acquiring validation.

(2.) The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 45 of 1978 against the defendant which was compounded by the parties leading to compromise decree dated 3.11.1981 by the learned Sub Judge(I), Hamirpur. On the basis of compromise decree Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun, sanctioned mutation qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was exclusively possessing the suit land as owner but the defendant later on filed an appeal against the mutation order before the Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, who set- aside the mutation wrongly on the ground that mutation could not have been sanctioned qua 'Gair Mumkin Land because the suit property never formed part of the compromise decree in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1978. Against it, the plaintiff went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who also rejected the appeal vider order dated 6.8.1992. Both the orders of the Sub Divisional Collector and Divisional Commissioner are claimed to be wrong, illegal and against the law by the plaintiff in this appeal.

(3.) The defendant admitted passing of compromise decree in a suit brought by the plaintiff. He claimed that the mutation on the basis of compromise decree was wrongly sanctioned by the A.C. IInd Grade, Nadaun and has rightly been reversed in appeal by the Sub Divisional Collector and also affirmed rightly by the Divisional Commissioner and claimed that the defendant is exclusive owner in possession of Gair Mumkin land of Patwar Circle, Dhaneta, Nauhngi, Choru and Sproh i.e. the suit property nor it was subject matter of previous suit. As the suit property never formed part of the suit, so it could not have been transferred without registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner are legal and binding and suit deserves to be dismissed.