BIRMA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, dated 14.07.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 33 -R/13 of 2005, vide which learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the present appellants by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Rohru, in Civil Suit No. 4 -1 of 2002 dated 31.08.2005.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 20.11.2006, on the following Substantial Question of Law: -

(3.) Facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that original plaintiff Ram Bahadur (predecessor -in -interest of the present appellants) had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 618/127 min old and Khasra No. 206 new measuring 0 -90 -49 Hect., situated in Chak Gangtoli, Tehsill Rohru to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and during the settlement operation, which had been conducted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in Rohru Tehsil in the year 1980, (which operation was not yet complete) the field staff of the settlement operation had measured the said land illegally and without proper demarcation and reduced the ownership of the plaintiff's land to the extent of more than 6 -0 Bighas without jurisdiction and without intimating the plaintiff about the said reduction of the ownership of his land, which fact had come into his knowledge later on and upon gaining knowledge of this fact, he had thereafter applied to the authority concerned to make good the area so reduced. However, nothing has been done in this regard so far. It was further mentioned in the plaint that the defendant in the month of February, 2002 had started interfering in the peaceful and settled possession of plaintiff's part of the suit land and defendant was further threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from suit land. It was further averred that defendant had no legal right to interfere in the suit land, which belonged to the plaintiff and on the said facts, the suit was filed.