BIR SINGH Vs. DHARAM SINGH & OTHERS

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, qua the suit khasra number(s) , was, hence decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of half of the suit land comprised in Khata No.74, Khatauni No.172 to 177, Khasra Nos. 54, 56, 8, 10/1, 20, 61, 65, 22, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 23, 63, 64, 31, 32, 36, 53, 55, 30, 57, 24, 25, 29, measuring 1-83-28 HM, which comes to 0-91.64 HM, situated in Mohal and Mauza Nadholi, Tehsil Nurpor, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) , as the land was earlier owned by his father who was in its possession. However, no final partition so far had taken place. It has been pleaded that his father never effect sale in favour of Mirchu and Moti and remained in possession of the suit land to the extent of share as co-owner. When the consolidation proceedings were being conducted in the year 1982 in the area, he came to know that on the basis of mutation on 20.019432, his share had been mutated in the name of Mirchu and Moti, whereas, no such sale was ever effected by his father. On coming to know, of these wrong entries, he enquired about the matter and when his plea was accepted by the revenue agency the present suit was filed claiming that the entries in the record of rights are wrong and is entitled for half of the suit land and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it is averred that the father of the plaintiff Nanku and his co-sharer Sant Ram had sold their shares which was mutated in the name of Mirchu and Mali on 20.02.1943 vide mutation No.161. The sale on behalf of Sant Ram and Hira who were not heard of for the last more than 15 years were excluded at the time of mutation, since the sale and mutation and suit land is coming in possession of the defendants and the share of the plaintiff has been reduced to 162/972 share out of the total suit land. It has also been averred that the suit is hopelessly time barred since it has been filed after more than 50 years from date of the attestation of mutation.