DURGA DASS Vs. DHARAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 against the present appellants as well as late Roop Ram for declaration to the effect that since they had purchased the land measuring 10 -0 -5 bighas, situate in Mauja Chanol, Pargana Nalli, Tehsi Kasauli, District Solan as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1984 -85 from defendants No. 1 to 3 i.e. the present appellants vide registered sale deed No.29 dated 14 -2 -1977 and they were put in possession by the said defendants and since then they are in possession as owners of this land. Since the appellants were delaying the correction of revenue entries on one pretext or the other which continued in favour of appellants No. l to 3, whereas deceased Roop Ram was shown to be a tenant over one of the khasra numbers i.e. 402 and in these circumstances, a declaration was sought by respondents No. 1 to 4 and an injunction was prayed - against them from interfering over the suit land.

(2.) The said suit was contested and resisted by the present appellants as well as late Roop Ram wherein pleas of suit being not valued properly for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, respondent Nos. I to 4 being stopped from filing the same on account of their act, conduct and acquiescence were raised. Possession of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 - plaintiffs was denied over the suit and. It was pleaded that consideration of Rs.5000/ - had not been paid to defendants No 1 to 3. Mutation was only to be effected in favour of the respondents No 1 to 4 plaintiffs after they had paid the consideration of Rs.5000/ -.

(3.) Parties went to trial on the aforesaid pleadings and the trial court decreed the suit of the respondents No. l to 4 - plaintiffs against the appellants -defendants as well as deceased Roop Ram, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit. Against aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31 -5 -1993 passed by Sub Judge First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, all the appellants and late Roep Ram who were arrayed as defendants No. 1 to 4 filed a single appeal in the court of District Judge, Solan, which was registered as CA.No.35 -S/I3 of 1993 on 27 -8 -1993. This appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court on S -12 -1995. It is this judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court which has been questioned by the appellants in the present appeal, wherein Roop Ram original defendant No 4 has been arrayed as a proforma respondent, although he was arrayed as appellant No.4 before the lower appellate court.