ROMEL SINGH Vs. GUR DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for possession stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court dismissed his appeal besides obviously affirmed the trial Court's judgment and decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Romel Singh has filed the civil suit for rendition of a decree for possession against the defendants. It has been pleaded that subject matter of the suit is the land comprised in Khata No.76, Khatauni No. 88, Khasra No. 55, 65, 100, 116, 128, 132, 179, 195, 200, 216, 222, 225, 309, 329, 805, 810, 921, 925 and 927, measuring 1-30- 17 hectares and 3/32 shares out of the land comprised in Khata No.21, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No.588 situated in village Dangra, Mauza Garli, Tehsil Dehra, District, Kangra, H.P. It has been pleaded that the suit land is recorded to be in the ownership and possession of defendants No.7 to 9 along with predecessor-in-interest of defendants NO.1 to 6 including other co-sharers and one Gittu son of Dalipa sold the suit land vide register sale deed of 3.2.1965 to one Man Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 4 and Hukam Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.5 and 6 along with defendants No.7 to 9 and thereafter the plaintiff filed civil suit No.107 of 1972, tilted as Romel Singh vs. Sh. Roshan Lal and others, challenging the sale deed as void and ineffective and its being not binding upon the plaintiff along with other cosharers against their reversionary interest after the death of alienor. The plaintiff has also challenged the sale deed on the grounds that the suit being ancestral and its being without legal necessity. It has been further pleaded that his previous suit was dismissed on 26.7.1976 and thereafter he preferred the appeal No.146/1976 before the learned District Judge and the appeal was also dismissed on 14.5.1979, whereafter, the plaintiff has preferred the Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No.189 of 1979 before the High Court and that appeal was allowed and thereby the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below stood set aside and in sequel the plaintiff's suit stood decreed. The plaintiff has further pleaded that after the death of original vendor Gittu on 17.1.1974, during the pendency of the previous suit and thereby the plaintiff has pleaded and claimed to be reversioner and thereby entitled for decree for possession of the suit land.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, the defendants have admitted the the previous litigation inter se the parties. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is not the near reversioner of the deceased vendor, and, as such, he is not entitled to recover possession from them. According to them only S/Sh. Roshan and Magar are the nearest reversioners of late Shri Gitu and as such only they can claim possession of the suit land.