RUPA ALIAS BALIA Vs. SURI MANSHA RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, as well as for, rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra number(s) , was, hence decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claims himself to be in joint possession of the suit land earlier as tenant since the land is stated to be with the plaintiff and defendant under tenancy on payment of gall batai to the owners. It has been averred that during settlement operation in the village the entries coming in the record of the rights, in the name of the plaintiff, reflecting the plaintiff to be tenant were moved illegally and the defendant was earlier shown as co-owner in possession of the suit land, but thereafter only the defendant has been shown to be owner. The defendant taking the undue advantage of the entries made in the possessory column of jamabandi preferred an application before the Settlement Collector, Dharamshala, claiming that he was the sole tenant over the suit land and that for the plaintiff was not impleaded as party. The Collector passed order as per the prayer made by the defendant which order is illegal, collusive and liable to be set aside. It has also been averred that he plaintiff was in possession as co-owner and in the month of September, 1994, the defendant threatened to cultivate the land to the exclusion of the plaintiff on which the revenue record was checked and it was found that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from the entries in the record of rights. It has also been averred that an application was earlier moved by the plaintiff before the Land Reforms Officer for correction of entries in the revenue record, who vide order dated 6.1.1991, advised the plaintiff to get remedy in some competent Court. Thereby after disposal of this application of 6.1.1998 the plaintiff had cause of action to file the suit in the civil court.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, locus standi, limitation, valuation jurisdiction as well as non joinder of necessary parties. It has been pleaded that the defendant has become owner of the entire land and the proprietary rights has been conferred in his favour. He has also averred that the entires are coming in possession of defendant which were in the know of the plaintiff. Hence the suit ought to have been filed within time. The suit is time barred. It has also been averred that the suit is not maintainable and be dismissed.