DEVKI Vs. KAMLE RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was one of the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 18.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2005, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 17.05.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, Camp at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., was dismissed upholding the findings of the learned Trial Court, whereby Civil Suit No. 108 of 2004/70 of 2004 was dismissed.

(2.) The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

(3.) The defendants, by way of filing written statement, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiff. They raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability cause of action and locus standi. On merits, the defendants denied that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest remained in possession over the suit land. It has been pleaded that possession of the suit land was never delivered to Jallu by Dagu and Lahullu. The defendants admitted that Dagu and Lahullu did redeem the suit land during their life time and half of the mortgaged land was redeemed by the legal-heirs of the deceased Dagu. Dagu and Lahullu remained in possession of the suit land and after their deaths, the land was possessed by their legal heirs and now the suit land is in possession of the defendants. As per the defendants, attestation of mutation No. 162, dated 28.07.1952, is legal and mortgage can be redeemed at any time. They have further contended that defendant No. 4 purchased 0-8-0 bighas of land legally and consequential thereto he has become owner of this piece of land. The plaintiffs or their predecessors never remained in possession of the suit land, so they cannot be said to have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants can redeem their half share of the mortgaged land at any time and to that effect they filed application in the competent court. Lastly, the defendants contended that plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land, thus the suit was prayed to be dismissed.