KARTAR SINGH Vs. SATPAL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002, passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P., in civil Suit No.34/1996, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration with permanent injunction came to be decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the plaintiff namely Raghunath Singh filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction, praying therein for decree of declaration to the effect that land measuring 0-17- 73 hects, comprised of khewat No.108, khatauni No.232, khasra No.2127, situated in village Bebehar, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendant with exclusive possession of the plaintiff and entry showing suit land under mortgage with defendant in the column of ownership is wrong, illegal, null and void. Plaintiff in the plaint also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the exclusive possession of plaintiff till partition of suit land.

(3.) As per plaintiff, consolidation took place in the village and while preparing Missal Haquiat Ishetemal, aforesaid khasra No.1196 was converted into khasra No.1200 and land was shown under mortgage showing father of the plaintiff Sudama as mortgagor and Saun father of the defendant as mortgagee. Plaintiff further claimed that suit land was never mortgaged by the father of the plaintiff with the father of defendant and entry to the contrary is wrong and illegal and at the back of the plaintiff and his father and as such, required to be rectified in accordance with law. Plaintiff further claimed that during the settlement, area was converted into meters and new khasra number was carved out and suit land was found in possession of plaintiff and as such, his name was reflected in the column of possession. On the basis of wrong entries made in the revenue record in favour of the defendant, defendant started threatenening to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid background, plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.