KHEM CHAND Vs. HARI SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT :- This appeal arises from an order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Special-I), Shimla, which, if upheld, would result in a de novo trial of the suit under circumstances which do not warrant the adoption of such a course.

(2.) The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. The appellant brought a suit for a declaration that a document purporting to record a compromise between him and the first respondent was void, illegal and inoperative and for the consequential relief in the nature of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the suit land. The suit was resisted by the contesting respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the compromise in question was arrived at the instance of the appellant and that the same was legal and valid and further that they were in actual possession of the suit land save and except a very small portion thereof on which the appellant had built a house. An alternative plea founded on adverse possession was also raised and it was asserted that even if in the revenue record the ownership and possession was shown to be that of the appellant and of the pro forma respondents, the contesting respondents had acquired title by adverse possession lasting for about twenty-two years.

(3.) The learned Sub Judge (I), Shimla, who tried the suit, framed the following issues :-