BHIM SINGH Vs. SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is maintained by the appellants laying challenge to the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 96-K of 2003, decided on 15.12.2007, whereby the judgment of the learned Trial Court passed in Civil Suit No. 73 of 1998, decided on 28.07.2003, was set-aside and the suit of the appellant therein was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents herein, who were plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') maintained a suit for declaration and injunction against the appellants herein, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') qua land comprising in Khata No. 179 min, Khatauni No. 363, Khasras No. 1771 and 1772, measuring 0-05- 02 hectares, situate in Mohal Gujrehra, Mauza Massal, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). As per the plaintiffs, they have their shares in the shamlat land, being inhabitants of this mohal. It is also contended that before settlement the suit land was recorded in possession of predecessors of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 and proforma defendants No. 5 to 10 as co-sharers in Khata No. 121 min, Khatauni No. 241, Khasra No. 809, measuring 1 Kanal 1 marla, situate in Mohal Gujrehra, Mauza Massal, Tehsil and District Kangra as co-sharers. Defendants No. 1 to 4 being clever, connived with the settlement staff and got recorded their names in the column of possession. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the possession of the defendants was recorded behind the back of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. Entry, being only a paper entry, is not binding upon the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and the same entry is liable to rectified, being without any justification and authority. It is averred that plaintiffs, being co-sharers, are in possession over the suit land alongwith proforma defendants and defendants No. 1 to 4 have nothing to do with the suit land. On the basis of wrong revenue entries, defendants No. 1 to 4 threatened the plaintiffs to oust/dispossess them from the suit land. The plaintiffs requested to the defendants to admit their and proforma defendant's claim, but they did not pay any heed to their request.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 4 have contended that the plaintiffs are neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. It is contended by defendants No. 1 to 4 that all the proprietors of village are necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and is also barred by time. Besides this, defendants No. 1 to 4 have also taken the preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action and maintainability of the suit. It is further contended that the entry of possession qua the suit land is in favour of the defendants and is rightly made in the revenue record. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are neither co-sharers nor in possession of shamlat land.