ROSHANI ALIAS JAI DEI Vs. MAHANTI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned Courts below (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 01.11.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2003, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16.01.2003, passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case No. 1/1 of 2000, was affirmed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents, who were the defendants before the learned Courts below (hereinafter to the called as "the defendants") for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein plaintiff has alleged that she is owner-in-possession of land, measuring 9 Biswas out of 19 Biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 45, situated in Village Khansra. It was further alleged that revenue entries showing the names of defendants No. 1 and 2 as owners-in-possession over the entire land, measuring 19 Biswas are wrong, illegal, null and void. As per the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 and 2 or their predecessor-in-interest was never remained in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries, as well as mutation attested by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 11.03.1976 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are null and void and since the defendants are threatening to take possession of the suit land, therefore they are liable to be restrained from interfering in the suit land.

(3.) The defendants, by filing written statement, resisted the suit of the plaintiff and took preliminary objections qua maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, limitation and estoppel. On merits, it has been averred that the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 and 2 was in possession of the whole land measuring 0.19 Bigha as a tenant and he was declared owner under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, vide mutation attested on 11.03.1976, in presence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land and to challenge the said entries, as she never filed an appeal against the said mutation and order, as such, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.