PRAKASH CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. RUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal the appellants/defendants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1996, dated 15.03.2004, vide which, learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree passed by he Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 88/1 of 96/93, dated 08.08.1996.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 06.05.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 5/5 min, Khatoni No. 7, Khasra Nos. 200 and 212, land measuring 6-6 bighas, situated in village Nauni, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') with further prayer that defendants be restrained by way of passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction not to interfere in the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff further prayed for a decree of possession in the alternative, in case, plaintiff failed to prove his possession or was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the suit land and defendants had no right, title and interest over the suit land. As per the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 was his real uncle and had wrongly and illegally without the knowledge of the plaintiff got himself recorded in possession of the suit land in revenue records with the connivance of the revenue officials as brother of defendant No. 1 was serving as a Peon in the Tehsil office, Sadar, District Bilaspur, who was very close to the defendant. It was further the case of the plaintiff that being the real nephew of defendant No. 1, though he requested the defendants to get the revenue entries corrected and on this he was assured by defendant No. 1 that he will get the revenue entries corrected by making a statement to this effect before the revenue authorities. It was further the case of the plaintiff that despite the assurance given by defendant No. 1 to get the revenue entries corrected, defendants started collecting material on the spot for construction of a house on the suit land with a malafide to show his possession over the same. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendants in fact had got no right, title and interest over the suit land and Entries in the revenue record were wrong and illegally managed by the defendants with the connivance of revenue officials and plaintiff was not bound by such entries which were without any legal sanctity. It was on these bases that the suit was filed by the plaintiff.