MOHAN SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chamba, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiff'), filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff along with proforma defendants are owners of the land comprised in Khasra No.263, situated in village Tissa Kaswati (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') and the entry in the revenue record in favour of the defendants qua the suit land are wrong and illegal. Plaintiff further prayed that the defendants be restrained permanently from raising any construction over the suit land and in the alternative for possession of the suit land.

(3.) It is averred by the plaintiff that he is recorded owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.264, 265 and 267, measuring 205 square yards and one square feet, which is adjoining to the suit land, which was recorded in the ownership of the plaintiff and proforma defendants, but in possession of defendants Nos.1 and 2 without any status. It is further averred that at one point of time, the suit land was owned by one Sh. Dass son of Sh. Harkha and the same was acquired by the plaintiff and proforma defendants by way of gift vide mutation No.38. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land was given to one Smt. Rukmani widow of Sh.Ram Singh for the purpose of living on 'Dharmarth', but defendants Nos.1 and 2, in connivance with the revenue agency on the basis of some forged Will allegedly executed by Smt. Rukmani, got themselves recorded in possession of the same, which entry is wrong, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and proforma defendants. It is averred by the plaintiff that Smt. Rukmani was not having any right, title or interest in the suit land, except that she was in permissive possession of the same and, as such, the defendants could not have inherited the suit land on the basis of Will. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants, taking advantage of the wrong entry in connivance with the revenue staff, got attested mutation No.64 on 30.1.1976, according to which proprietary rights were conferred upon them qua the suit land without any lawful authority as the suit land, which is comprising of a house, could not have been the subject of acquisition of proprietary rights under tenancy or any other law. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants were recorded in possession of the suit land, not as a tenant, but without any status. Thereafter, defendant No.1 on 27.1.1995 has dismantled the building situated over the suit land with a view to raise fresh construction to which he has no right, title or interest. In the aforesaid background the plaintiff filed a civil suit.