SEETLA DEVI Vs. ROOP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original defendant Paras Ram had filed this appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 17.6.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1994. The parties are referred in this judgment, as they were referred in the trial court.

(2.) The facts in brief are that plaintiff Roop Chand filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land and defendant has got no right, title or interest over the suit land, plaintiff is not bound by the wrong revenue entries appearing in the name of Ram Chand deceased. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed against the defendant from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff on the suit land.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiff is that Ram Chand was the owner and plaintiff was tenant under said Ram Chand on the suit land. Ram Chand had died without leaving wife, male or female issue, his parents had already died. The defendant being the brother of Ram Chand, is his sole heir. The plaintiff on coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, Act) has become owner of the suit land by operation of law and mutation No. 37 to this effect was also attested on 11.5.1986 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant retired as Tehsildar and by exerting his influence got the mutation reviewed at the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Collector, Kullu, who remanded the mutation proceedings to Assistant Collector, who has not decided the mutation after remand. The defendant taking advantage of the wrong entries started causing unlawful interference on the suit land. In these circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit.