RAM RATTAN AND ANOTHER Vs. FATEH SINGH (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the allegations that she was a poor scheduled caste lady, who had been allotted Khasra No. 887/844/2, measuring 3 bighas, situated in Mauza and Pargana Satrol, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. vide order dated 27.01999 by the Collector, Kandaghat on the basis that her family fell in the 'Antodaya Family' category. Over a portion of the land, the Panchayat had constructed a link road 'Dhobra to Pangrol' and the defendant (now deceased) , who was a clever person, came in contact with her for getting no objection from her. When the plaintiff after consulting her sons refused for the same, the defendant informed that she would be paid compensation as the road had already been construction on the spot. On this pretext, she was brought to Kandaghat Tehsil where her thumb impressions were obtained on certain papers. It was only on 06.10.2003, when the son of the plaintiff, Ram Rattan was present in Patwar Circle, Satrol, came to know that mutation pertaining to the suit land had already been sanctioned in favour of the defendant on the basis of some sale deed. This information was imparted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kandaghat. Thereafter, the copy of the sale deed was applied. It was contended that there was no sale deed executed by the plaintiff and even otherwise no sale consideration had been passed over to the plaintiff and, therefore, the alleged sale was the result of fraud and misrepresentation played by the defendant. It was further claimed that even the possession of the land had not been delivered to the defendant. It was on these allegations that the plaintiffs filed the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement wherein various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and inadequacy of court fee etc. were taken. On merits, it was averred that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff about 24-25 years ago, but she was not residing at Village Satrol and infact was residing at Village Pandali, P.O. Junga, Tehsil Kasumpti, District Shimla. It was denied that the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff in a manner as alleged by her, rather the land was granted as 'nautor'. The plaintiff out of free will executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant and handed over the possession of the suit land along with the structure standing thereupon to the defendant. It was denied that the plaintiff was brought to Kandaghat Tehsil Office so as to enable her to get compensation, rather the plaintiff had due knowledge that in pursuance of the oral agreement to sell, the sale deed in question had to be executed.