SURESH KUMAR ALIAS NAWANG Vs. CHHERING RAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against an order of the Senior Sub -Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu dismissing an application under Sections 151 - 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the judgment and decree dated 9 -9 -I987 passed in Civil Suit No. 91/84. The suit was filed by one Pama Namgial, predecessor in interest of the Petitioners for declaration against the Respondents that he was owner in possession of the lands set out in prayers (A), (B), (C), (CC) and (D). With regard to each prayer, he had claimed particular share in the lands mentioned therein. He also prayed for a consequential relief that any change by the Girdawar in the Girdawari of the said entries was not binding on him. The suit was contested by the Respondents on the ground that there was a prior partition in which the properties have been allotted to the Respondents and the Plaintiff could not claim any interest therein That case of the Respondents was found against in the judgment rendered in the suit and the Court decreed the suit on 9 -9 -1987 with regard to prayers (A),(B),(C) and (D) While doing so, the Court expressed the opinion that the land covered by prayer (CC) was also covered by prayer (A) and, therefore, it was redundant and as a consequence prayer in (CC) was rejected. In paragraph 11 of the judgment dealing with issue No. 2, the Court observed: Regarding prayer CC it was found that it is included in prayer A but has separately been shown in Ex. P -8 for Khata No. 4 min Khatoni No. 4 min.

(2.) AGAIN in paragraph 13 dealing with issue No. 3, the Court said that the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the land comprised in prayers A, B and D and 1 /4th share of the land comprised in prayer C and that with respect to the land shown in prayer CC the land had already been included in prayer A and, therefore, the issue was decided accordingly. Ultimately, when a decree was passed by the Court, it was in favour of the Plaintiff only, with regard to prayers (A), (B), (C) and (D) With regard to prayer (CC), it was not granted on the footing that it was already included in prayer (A).

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the order of the Senior Sub -Judge, the Plaintiff died on 20/21 -1 -1992. The Petitioners were legal heirs and as such, they have preferred this revision petition against the order of the Senior Sub -Judge.