LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-117

RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. RANI DEVI AND OTHERS

Decided On May 18, 2017
RAVINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Rani Devi and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts by the learned Courts below, whereby, they dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, wherein, they, with respect to the suit land claimed against the defendants relief of declaration along with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the land measuring 0-24-97 hectare comprised in khata No.42, khatauni No. 47, situated in Mohal Moin, Mauza Gangot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint as mortgagees for more than 30 years and has become owners of this land by way of afflux of time. According to them, the suit land was mortgaged with the grand father of the plaintiffs and performa defendants by the husband of the deceased defendant No.1 vide mutation No.2703/2704 dated 14.5.1913 and since then the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and performa defendants are coming in possession of this land as mortgagees. They are thus mortgagees in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years and as such they have become owners of this land by way of afflux of time. However, defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of the revenue entries existing in her favour is trying and threatening to receive compensation in respect of the suit land acquired by S.D.O. (C)-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Dehra for construction of Bus Stand without any right, title or interest therein. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she has taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, cause of action, and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, she has denied if her husband had mortgaged the suit land with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and performa defendants. In the alternative she has pleaded that if mortgage is proven the same was usufructuary and the plaintiffs cannot become owners of the suit land. She has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.