HARI SINGH Vs. NARBADA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 14-S/13 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby learned trial Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chopal, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.12.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/I of 2005 had dismissed the suit filed by the present respondent/plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that she was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 42/43, Khatauni No. 61, Khasra No. Kitta 3, measuring 0-39-47 hectares, situated in chak Kanhal, Pargana Peontra, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land'), which land stood purchased by her from one Kewal Ram, son of Goru Ram about three years back and defendant was stranger to the suit land and causing interference over the suit land without any right, title and interest by cutting grass or by some other manner.

(3.) The suit so filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendant who took the stand in the written statement that plaintiff was not in possession over the suit land and entries in revenue record were illegal, wrong and not binding upon the defendant. As per defendant, possession over the suit land had not been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed as was alleged in the plaint. According to defendant, Goru Ram in fact never cultivated the suit land which was granted to him by way of 'nataur' and it was he who was in possession of the suit land from the time of his father for more than 45 years and his possession over the suit land which was in the shape of 'ghasni' was peaceful, hostile, adverse and continuous and had matured into ownership. According to defendant, original owner never resided in the chak concerned and there were fodder trees over the suit land which had been used by defendant without any interference and he had also planted some lemon trees over the suit land. It was further mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff was out of possession and with a motive to recover the possession, the present suit was filed by her. On these bases, defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff.