PARVATI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. SABRATU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2001, dated 17.07.2003, vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present appellants, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 53/98, dated 04.07.2001, whereby the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit so filed before it by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") filed a suit on the ground that the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 226 min/214 min, Khasra Nos. 859 and 869, Kitta 2, measuring 2-8-6 bighas, situated in Mauja Kehar, Hadbast No. 290, Illaqa Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") was recorded in the ownership and possession of defendant, which entry was wrong and illegal, as Khasra No. 869 and ½ share of Khasra No. 859, Kittas 2, measuring 1-14-12 bighas was actually in possession of the plaintiffs in their capacity as its owners. As per the plaintiffs, their predecessor-in-interest, late Sh. Dilu was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and he was paying rent to the land owner. Said Dilu had neither abandoned nor relinquished his tenancy rights, nor he was ever ejected from the suit land. As per the plaintiffs, their father had thus become owner of the suit land by operation of law in the year 1992. It was further their case that predecessor-in-interest of defendant had neither paid any rent of the suit land to the land owner nor he was in possession of the same. In the alternative, it was prayed by the plaintiffs that in case it was found that defendant or his predecessor-in-interest had any right, title or interest in the suit land, then the plaintiffs may be declared as owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Plaintiffs in fact had prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) Case of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendant, who took the stand that the suit land was owned and possessed by the defendant and that neither the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs ever possessed the suit land as a non-occupancy tenant. As per the defendant, the suit land first remained in possession of Sh. Balu and after his death, the same was in possession of Sh. Chinhu, who was father of defendant and after the death of Chinhu, the possession of the suit land was with the defendant, who was exclusive owner in possession of the same. It was further mentioned in the written statement that Chinhu filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs and their father in the Court of learned Sub Judge Court No. III, Mandi and plaintiffs and their father in the said case had stated on oath that they will not interfere with the ownership and possession of Chinhu, i.e., father of the defendant. As per the defendant, plaintiffs and their father had admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit land in Civil Suit No. 99 of 1991, which was decreed in favour of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.1992. It was further mentioned that during consolidation proceedings, Khasra No. 626, measuring 1-0-19 bighas was converted into Khasra No. 869 and hence, the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. It was also denied in the written statement that the plaintiffs had otherwise become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession.