KHAZUR SINGH Vs. BACHITTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appellants filed a suit against the present Respondents for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint and Defendants have no right, title and interest in the said land. According to Plaintiffs, the names of Defendants had been wrongly recorded in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenants and actually they were neither tenants nor had been in possession of the suit land at any time whatsoever. It was pleaded by the Plaintiffs that Defendants on 25-5-1976 had instituted Suit No. 126/1976 against the Plaintiffs in the Court of Sub-Judge, Nurpur and Defendants had claimed a permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the Defendants, since the Defendants claimed themselves to be in occupation as non-occupancy tenants under the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' further case has been that during the pendency of this earlier suit which was alleged to have been filed on wrong facts, the Defendants realised the futility of the alleged suit and accordingly they entered into a compromise with the Plaintiffs on 28-10-1977 and in the said compromise, the Defendants very specifically admitted the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land and on the basis of the said compromise, Defendants got their Suit No. 126/1976 dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure on 16-12-1977. Plaintiffs also pleaded that even after the dismissal of the suit, Defendants continued to be recorded in possession and these wrong entries were got corrected in 1981 by the Plaintiffs but the Defendants with some ulterior motive, started interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. Thus, the Plaintiffs, on the basis of the aforesaid pleas, sought declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land and as a consequential relief, permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought for.

(2.) Defendants contested the suit and it was pleaded by them that they had been non-occupancy tenants in possession of the suit land and on the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, they had acquired rights of ownership in the suit land. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs, as such, lost title in the said land. Plaintiffs' possession has been denied. They also denied that they have entered into any compromise with the Plaintiff regarding the suit land in the previous suit. The Defendants admitted the factum of filing of the previous suit against the Plaintiffs, which, according to Defendants, was filed as the Plaintiffs had been interfering in their possession. According to Defendants, as Plaintiffs later on stopped interfering with the possession of the Defendants, therefore, Defendants had got their suit dismissed in default.

(3.) Parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court: