PRABHU RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri R L Raghu, Additional District Judge, Mandi, passed by him in Civil Appeal 56/90, decided on 1712 -1993 By means of impugned judgment the first appellate court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Joginder Nagar in Civil Suit No. 120/s89 dated 8 -3 1990 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that suit was filed for declaration with consequential relief of injunction by the plaintiff PI a raised by the plaintiff in the suit was that land measuring 704 Sq. Yards and 5 Sq. Feet situated Muhal Joginder Nagar, District Mandi comprised in khata/ khatauni No 390 min/610 min/1, khasra No. U41/1 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by him and declaration was sought to this effect and consequently relief of injunction was prayed restraining the defendants from ejecting him from the same pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Joginder Nagar in proceedings under Section 163 of the H P. Land Revenue Act on 21 -6 -1988. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land on the basis of his being in adverse possession of the same for the last more than 40 years and therefore, according to him, his right was indefeasible. According to the plaintiff the proceedings culminating in passing of Ejectment orders on 21 -6 -1988 in file No 16, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Crade Joginder Nagar in exercise of powers vested in him under section 163 of the H. P, Land Revenue Act are not sustainable either in fact or in law and since the defendants have failed to treat the said order as null and void as well as to concede his ownership over the suit land, hence the necessity of filing this suit. Exemption from issuing notice under section -0 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code was prayed for which appears to have been granted by the court below.

(2.) This suit was resisted and contested by the defendants where amongst other things pleaded that the order of ejectment passed in favour of the State and against the plaintiff from the suit land is legal and suit was bad for want of notice, court having no jurisdiction as also its being barred by time and estoppel was also pleaded as a defence I was further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff had encroached upon the land in the year 1988 with an intention to grab the same and his plea that he is in possession for the last 40 years and his having become owner by adverse possession was also controverted. In these circumstances parties went to trial on the following issues :

(3.) The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was questioned before the first appellate court, who by means of impugned judgment and decree assailed dismissal of the suit ordered by the trial court, hence this