DUGLU RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff -appellants. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is that of Shri Surjit Singh, District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, Camp at Kullu dated 22.10.1990 and that of the trial Court is of Shri V.K. Ahuja, Senior Sub -Judge, Kullu dated 22.6.1987.

(2.) The plaintiffs -appellants went to the Civil Court on the pleadings that the suit land measuring 3 Bighas 5 Biswas 0 Biswansis bearing Khasra No. 6117 situated in Phati Jana Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu was in their ownership and possession regarding which they sought a declaration from the Civil Court. They had become owners by virtue of a Will dated 16.3.1982, which was executed in their favour by late Smt. Duadshi. By way of consequential relief, they prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the State of H.P. and the defendants -respondents Hira Lal and Ram and other residents of the area from interfering with their possession over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the same had been granted to their predecessor -in -interest Smt. Duadshi under the Nautor Scheme by the Revenue Assistant as she was a landless lady. She made a Will in respect of the same in their favour and, therefore, on her death, they came into possession thereof. However, the Collector, Kullu, vide his order dated 16.8.1982 cancelled the grant in her favour. This order was challenged being illegal, void and without jurisdiction. After the said order had been passed, the State of H.P., the residents of the area i.e. defendants Hira Lai and Bed Ram and nine other persons, who were represented by Hira Lai and Bed Ram defendants in the suit in a representative capacity started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, hence the suit for declaration and protection of their rights.

(3.) In the written statement, it was objected that the suit was incompetent for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and it was alleged that the grant made to the deceased lady was later on resumed as it was found that there stood a large number of trees on the suit land and also because she had failed to break the land within two years, though there was a specific condition in the Patta that if the land is not broken for cultivation within 2 years, the grant shall be resumed, It was also averred that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was also denied that Duadshi made any Will in favour of the plaintiffs..