JEET SINGH Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the present appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Una dated 31.3.2008 in the following cases; Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2006 titled Tilak Raj v. Jeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006 titled Tilak Raj v. Jeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2006 titled Jagan Nath v. Tilak Raj and another, which appeals arose from the common judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 titled Jeet Singh v. Tilak Raj and Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 titled Tilak Raj v. Jeet Singh and another decided on 30.3.2006.

(2.) Factual controversy involved in these appeals is as under.

(3.) Jeet Singh son of Rikhi Ram filed Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 on the grounds that Chiranji Lal son of Kanshi Ram was owner of suit land measuring 0-21-39 comprised in Khewat No. 222min, Khatauni No. 365min, Khasra No. 3938(new) 84/15/1 (old) situated in village Panjawar, Tehsil and District Una and plaintiff was cultivating the suit land at the spot since last more than 40 years on payment of Batai. According to the plaintiff due to cordial relations between him and deceased Charanji Lal, entry in the revenue record could not be corrected but he continued to be in actual physical possession over the suit land. Deceased Charanji Lal was unmarried and it was the plaintiff who rendered all kind of services to Charanji Lal during his lifetime till his death. Charanji Lal executed a 'Will' out of his free will and volition and in a sound state of mind on account of love and affection, in favour of the plaintiff and defendant on 26.1996. As per plaintiff defendant Tilak Raj alleged that Charanji Lal had also executed a 'Will' in his favour on 6.2.1996, and when both these 'Wills' were presented before Revenue Authorities for mutation, Tehsildar (Settlement) illegally ignored the 'Will' which was in favour of the plaintiff and attested mutation No. 255 dated 8.5.1996 in favour of the defendant without following the provisions required to be followed while sanctioning mutation. On these grounds, it was urged by plaintiff that the mutation attested in favour of Tilak Raj was illegal, null and void. It was also the case of the plaintiff that he had also acquired proprietary rights over the suit land after enforcement of H.P. Land Reforms & Tenancy Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. Further as per the plaintiff on the basis of illegal entry, defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and trying to change nature of the suit land. On these bases, plaintiff filed said suit praying for decree for declaration that he was owner in possession of suit land on the basis of last genuine 'Will' of deceased testator Charanji Lal dated 26.1996 and mutation entered in favour of defendant Tilak Raj on the basis of 'Will' dated 6.2.1996 was illegal, null and void and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in any manner in the peaceful and lawful possession of plaintiff as owner and further for restraining defendant from alienating or changing the nature of suit land in any manner whatsoever and in the alternative for decree for possession in case defendant succeeded in ousting the plaintiff from the suit land during the pendency of the suit.