PARAS RAM Vs. PUSHPA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereunder, they decreed the plaintiffs' suit, for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction besides in the alternative for rendition, of, a decree, for possession of the suit khasra numbers.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned trial Court with the averments that the suit land comprised iin Khewat No.24, Khatauni No. 50, and, Khasra No.320 and 321, measuring 0-09-41 hectares situated at Chak Janog-Abal, Pargana Khalagad, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, is, owned and possessed by them. It was earlier under the tenancy of Motia, and, he was conferred the proprietary rights. His estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and Smt. Dhanko, respectively, as daughters and widow of Sees Ram son of Motia. The estate of Smt. Dhanko has also been inherited by the plaintiffs herein. It has been pleaded that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land, but recently he tried to get his name entered in the column of possession. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Settlement, Theog declined to do so and his appeal was also dismissed by the settlement Collector, Shimla, and, the case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Theog for fresh decision. It has been pleaded that the defendant had been threatening to cause interference in the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has pleaded that in fact Devata Chikhdaishvar is the owner of the suit land, and, the defendant is a tenant under the "deity". Earlier Sadh, father of the defendant and prior to him grand father of the defendant were tenant under the 'deity'. This land was earlier shown by Khasra No.37. Sadh used to render services to 'deity' and used to pay 1/4th of the land revenue of this land. The Kardar of Devata Chikhdaishvare took the services of "pooja" etc. from Sadh and Kapuru and gave this land for cultivation to them. So they were in settled possession of the suit land, during their life time. It is denied that the plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the suit land. The entries in the name of Motia are wrong.