BIHARI LAL Vs. DINA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Mandi, in Civil Suit No.252 of 1999, whereby the suit for vacant possession of the land entered in Khewat No.342 min, Khatauni No.504, Khasra No.873, measuring 0-0-18 bighas and Khewat No.152, Khatauni No.219, Khasra No.872/1, measuring 0-1-0 bigha, situate in village Nagchala, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner herein (plaintiff in the trial Court) has no title in the suit land. He filed the suit for possession of the suit land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the grounds that he was in possession of the suit land and it is on 8.11.1998 he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondent (defendant in the trial Court). The cowshed in existence was demolished, grass destroyed and the trees standing over the suit land were cut and the timber removed.

(3.) In the written statement it has been pleaded that neither the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land nor having his cowshed over Khasra No.873 as alleged. There is no question of his using land bearing Khasra No.872/1 as kitchen garden or place for storage of grass, cow-dung, timber etc. He never remained in possession of the suit land nor have any right, title or interest over the same. It is rather the defendant, who is owner-in-possession of the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land since 1960. The plaintiff has concealed these facts from the Court as according to the defendant, the suit land bearing Khasra No.873 in the revenue record has been shown in the possession of one Lachhu, who has abandoned the same long ago and settled at some other place. Now Khasra No.873 is in exclusive possession of one Hem Chand son of Harnam Dass of village Nagchala. The suit, therefore, has been stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties also. Replication was also filed.