VED RAM Vs. ATMA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 01.06.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 22.11.2001, passed by the then sub-Judge, 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 17 of 2001, was affirmed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 before this Court (hereinafter to be called as "plaintiff"), has maintained a suit against the defendants, who is appellant before this Court (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants") for declaration and injunction that he is owner-in-possession of the suit land, comprising Khasra Nos. 55, 57, 60, 359, 367, 368, 370, 382, 428, Kitas 9, Khata/Khatauni No. 25/30, old Khasra Nos. 642, 644, 647, 635, 599 min, 584, 588, area measuring 5-12-0 bighas (0-45-17 hectares), situated at Muhal Defri, Phati Riara, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil Manali (hereinafter to called as "the suit land") with a further prayer that sale deed, Ext. PA, dated 06.01.2001, executed by Maya Dass in favour of Ved Ram for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) to the extent as it relates to the aforesaid Khasra numbers, owned and possessed by the plaintiffs is null and void and having no force. Further any mutation passed on the basis of aforesaid sale deed is also liable to be modified and be modified. It is further averred that suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 10/14 to 19, measuring 10-19-0 bighas of Phati Riara, as per jamabandi for the years 1966-67 was entered in joint ownership of Shiam Chand, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 3 to 6, Maya Dass, Mehar Chand, Chanan Singh, Bishan Dass, defendants No. 2, 7 to 9, 10 & 12 and one Utti, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 7 to 9.

(3.) The defendants, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs by taking preliminary objections, viz., maintainability and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, neither tenant nor inducted as a tenant by any of the owner of the suit land, suit is time barred by resjudicata and under Rule 2, Order 2 CPC and suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. On merits, it has been averred that the entries in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff are fictitious, baseless, without material and were recorded behind the back of defendants, without their knowledge. It has been further averred that the defendants are joint owners-in-possession of the suit land and no family partition had ever been affected among the co-owners of the suit land, for cultivatory purpose and they are in separate possession without partition. Defendants further declared that they had never inducted the plaintiff as tenant and mutation No. 859, dated 28.08.1991 is baseless and wrong. It was denied that defendant No. 2 has executed fictitious and illegal sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, Maya Dass. Hence suit of the plaintiff deserves dismissal.