ROOP SINGH Vs. PRABHA RAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned trial Court had rendered a decree holding a pronouncement therein qua the judgment recorded by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat on 24.12.1992 being non-est. Also it pronounced a decree qua the plaintiffs becoming owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned trial Court preferred an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge who while affirming the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court qua the judgment recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat on 24.12.1992 being non-est yet proceeded to rescind the decree of the learned trial Court whereby the plaintiffs were declared to become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants standing aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, for reversal whereof they institute the instant appeal here-before.

(2.) The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and averred that land comprised in Khewat No.57 min Khatauni No.141 Min Khasra No.1075 measuring 0-62-10 hectare is situated at village Kailag, illaqua Anatpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (for short 'the suit land') and there is house of defendant No.1 with verandah double storeyed over Khasra No.1075/1 measuring 0-01-40 hectares and cow shed consisting of three rooms with its courtyard over Khasra No.1075/2 measuring 0-04- 42 hectares. The possession of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit land is open, peaceful hostile, continuous, without interruption and to the knowledge of the defendants from January 1960 and has now matured into title. Thus, the plaintiffs have become owners by way of adverse possession and the same is reflected in red ink in the spot map. The land comprised in Khasra No.1075/4 measuring 0-15-17 hectare is also in adverse possession of the plaintiffs No.2 to 7 as their possession is peaceful, continuous and hostile since the time of their father and the same has matured into title. It is averred that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.2 has obtained fraudulently a collusive judgment on 24.12.1992 of the suit land from Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat exercising the powers of Civil Court on the basis of adverse possession which judgment is result of fraud and the same is liable to be set aside. Thereafter, mutation was also got sanctioned on the basis of the above judgment in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is void and not operative qua the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants for the first time on 24.12.1992 disclosed that he has obtained judgment of the suit land in his favour and has also got the mutation attested in his favour. All the above acts have been done by the defendant No.1 in collusion with the Patwari Halqua as well as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat whereby an ejectment file was prepared against the defendant No.1 of the suit land and false reports were also got prepared. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to get the judgment of 24.12.1992 set aside as the same has been obtained by him with fraud and in collusion with defendant No.2 but of no use, hence the suit.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted and defendant No.1 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objection inter alia of cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation and the plaintiff having no locus standi to file the present suit. The description of the suit land given in para No.1 of the plaint was admitted. However, the defendant denied that the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land. The defendant No.1 also alleged that the plaintiff should have filed appeal against the judgment of the Assistant Grade 1st Grade. It is also denied that there are different types of trees over the suit land. The defendant denied other averments made in the plaint.