DEV RAJ Vs. KRISHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who were defendants No. 1 and 2, have filed this appeal against the judgment, decree dated 11.2.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1987 partly allowing the 1st appeal by holding that respondent No. 1/plaintiff is not entitled to get back possession of the house comprised in Khasra No. 663, measuring 11 biswas, instead she is only entitled to the market rate of the land covered under the construction and thus modifying judgment, decree dated 28.1.1987 passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ghumarwin in civil Suit No. 67/1 of 1982. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed the cross objections in the appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession on the ground that her father Chaudhari was owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 663 measuring 11 biswas as well as land comprised in Khasra Nos. 659, 660 measuring 1 -11 bighas village Behran, Pargna Geharwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (for short ˜suit land). On the death of Chaudhari the respondent No. 1, being his daughter, became owner in possession of the suit land. The appellants had threatened to interfere in her ownership and possession, therefore, she filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land including demolition of structure on Khasra No. 663.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sandip Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the other respondents. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that learned first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the material on record. The appellant No. 1 has succeeded to the tenancy rights of Chaudhari under Section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act which has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Judge. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue in question. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that respondent No. 1 has proved her title on the suit land, therefore, she is entitled to possession of the suit land after demolition of structure constructed on Khasra No. 663. The decree passed by learned District Judge is vague inasmuch as the market value of the land under the structure has not been assessed. He has prayed for restoration of the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge. Substantial questions of law No. (i) and (ii) of the Appeal :