DASONDHI RAM Vs. KAKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, whereby an appeal against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Theog, was allowed and the suit of the appellants was dismissed. The appellants had based their suit on the following allegation's :

(2.) The appellants are the proprietors of shops numbered as x@128 and x@129, (these shops, in fact, constituted one shop, being separated by a partition only), situated in Khasra No. 76, Shai Bazar Theog. Gonda and Hamira, two brothers, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, had, on the 28th July, 1915, mortgaged with possession the above shops, along with other property, with Dila Ram and Arjun. The mortgage was redeemed on the basis of mutation No. 30, sanctioned on the 14th June. 1945. The predecessors-in-interest of the appellants got back possession of the property redeemed excepting shops Nos. x@128 and x@129. Possession of those shops could not be obtained as they were found in possession of the Ruler of Theog State through Faquiriya, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 Faquiriya was holding the shops as a tenant under the Ruler of Theog. After the integration of Theog Slate into Himachal Pradesh, shops x@128 and x@129 came to be in the possession of the Himachal Pradesh Government, through Faquiriya. The Himachal Pradesh Govt. transferred the possession of the shops to the Small Town Committee Theog, respondent No. 6. The appellants had made representations to the Himachal Pradesh Government that they were the owners of the shops and possession should be delivered to them. After a lengthy correspondence, the Himachal Pradesh Government and respondent No. 6 recognized the title of the appellants to the shops and delivered them symbolical possession. Later on, the appellants got actual possession also, of shop x@129. They could not get actual possession of shop x@128 as Faquiriya had refused to deliver possession. He had, even, refused to attorn to the appellants as his land-lords. On the other hand, Faquiriya had, repudiated the title of the appellants. Faquiriya was in illegal possession of the shop x@128 and the appellants, who were the owners of the shop, were entitled to recover possession from him. The appellants were, further, entitled to get an amount of Rs. 300 as compensation for three years for use and occupation of the shop. Faquiriya had paid an amount of Rs. 749-50 nP. to respondent No. 6 as rent of the shop; the appellants were entitled to get that amount also. The appellants had requested respondent No. 6 to pay the above amount to them but respondent No. 6 had not acceded to their request, Respondent No. 6 had informed the appellants that Faquiriya was claiming back the amount and that in the circumstances, the amount will be paid to the person who may be adjudged to be entitled to get it by a civil court.

(3.) On the above allegations, the appellants prayed for possession of shop x@128, for the recovery of Rs. 300 and for a declaration that they were entitled to get Rs. 749.50 nP. lying with respondent No. 6.