VIDYA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Sh. Surjit Singh District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, Camp at Kullu dated 14 -1 -1991 whereby the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent Uma Devi has been decreed to the effect that the Defendants -Appellants have been restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the land measuring 4 -10 0 Bigha situated in Phati Soil Kothi Barshai, Tehsil and District Kullu, which had been granted to her under the description which has been given with plan attached thereto i. e. the suit land. By the same judgment the cross objections filed by the Defendant -Appellants have also been dismissed. It may be mentioned here that the Appellant was aggrieved against the judgment and decree in the Court of Shri J. L. Gapta, Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kullu dated 2 -11 -1987 dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff Respondent.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Plaintiff -Respondents filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for the issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants Appellants on the pleadings that the suit land fully described in the plaint, and also as per details given in the impugned judgment and decree, had been in her possession since the year 197/,. She made an application to the S. D. O. (C) Kullu for allotting the said land to her under the Nautor Rules. However, her application was dismissed by the S. D. O. (C) Kullu and then she filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and the fate of that appeal was same. Then she filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Kullu and he vide order dated 21 -5 -1980 set aside the orders of the S. D. O. (C) Kullu and the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and directed that the suit land be given to her under the Nautor Rules In consequence of the same Patta dated 26 -11 -1981 was issued in her favour and symbolic possession was also delivered to her because she was also in physical possession

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: