SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2003, titled " Suresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of HP.," affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in CS No. 59 of 2000, titled Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

(2.) The briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of this case are that plaintiff Shri Sher Singh filed suit for declaration to the effect that he has become owner by way of adverse possession of land measuring 4 - 18 -17 bighas in Khasra No. 1520/1363 entered in Khata Khatauni No. 265 min/48 min situate in Mohal Passal, Pargana Ahju, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District, Mandi, HP. He further averred that as per Jamabandi, 1993, suit land is recorded in ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh but he is in the continuous, open, peaceful and hostile possession of the same since 26.1.1950. Entry in the revenue record is contrary to the factual position because he developed the suit land and made it cultivable by spending huge sum of money. It is also averred in the plaint that he has grown seasonal crops over the major portion of the suit land and there are number of fruit giving trees also. It is specifically averred that possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is quite old which is within the knowledge of the respondent - defendant, who never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has fenced the suit land since its inception and has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, plaintiff filed appeal under Section 96 CPC in the court of learned District Judge, Mandi, HP, however, the same was also dismissed and the judgment of learned Sub Judge Jogindernagar, HP, was upheld. Hence, this regular second appeal before this Court.