RAJINDER KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment to avoid repetition of evidence.

(2.) These regular second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Shimla, H.P. dated 19.11.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 102-S/13 of 04/2000 titled as Bhag Mal Vs. Ram Krishan and Civil Appeal No. 101-S/13 of 04/2000, titled as Ram Krishan Vs. Bhag Mal.

(3.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of these regular second appeals are that the appellant-plaintiff in RSA No. 1 of 2008 has filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in respect of land comprised in Kh. No. 1032/927/187, measuring 4 biswas and one storeyed house standing thereon, situated at village Chamiyana (Neri-Dhar), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) for declaration as well as permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff, he is a blacksmith (Lohar) by caste and it comes under the definition of Scheduled Caste. The plaintiff had come to Shimla in the year 1958 for earning his livelihood as carpenter and worked at Chamiyana, Shimla. The defendant had sold suit land in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1974 for consideration of Rs. 2,000.00 orally and handed over the possession to him. He constructed his house over the suit land in the year 1978. The defendant had received the entire amount of consideration from the plaintiff and assured him to execute sale deed and get it registered in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant was not owner at the time of oral sale, the sale deed could not be executed at that time. The defendant avoided the execution of the sale deed with his malifide intention. The defendant advised the plaintiff that he is non-Himachali and sale deed could not be executed in his favour. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application for correction of revenue entries before the A.C. IInd Grade, Shimla, which was rejected on 17.3.1994 on the ground that plaintiff is resident of Village Panwa Ropar (Punjab) and land could not be entered in his favour without the permission from the State Government. The defendant has also raised loan worth Rs. 90,000.00 against the suit land. The defendant executed an agreement of sale in the year 1992 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land along with one storyed house and revenue entries in favour of defendant are illegal, wrong, void and inoperative and as such not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant has no right in the suit land and house existing thereon. The defendant could not create any kind of charge over the suit land after 1974. The revenue entries in respect of the suit land in favour of defendant may be declared illegal, void and inoperative against the right of the plaintiff. The plaintiff may be declared owner-in-possession of the suit land along with the house existing thereon.