PIAR CHAND Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.164/13 of 2004/2001, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that one Munshi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction as well as for possession averring therein that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 24-17 bighas, comprised in Khatta/Khatauni No.36/53, Khasra No.136 and 138, Kitta-2, situated in village Ropa Ghullatar, Pargana Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). It is alleged by the plaintiff that entries in the revenue record qua the suit land in favour of the defendants are wrong and without having any right, title or interest in the suit land. It is averred by the plaintiff that on 10.3.1995, on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue record, the defendants threatened to interfere with possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff be declared owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession. In this background, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land in any manner as well as for possession.

(3.) Defendants No.1 and 2, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, estoppel, valuation and limitation. On merits, it is alleged by the defendants that they are joint owners in possession of share of the suit land and they alongwith plaintiff are correctly recorded as joint owners in possession of the suit land, which stood partitioned amongst them on 15.5.1994 and since then the defendants are coming in separate possession of their shares. In nutshell, the defendants refuted the case of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. In the aforesaid background, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.