PINJU RAM Vs. PUNNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Dharamshala, dated 01.01.2004, in Civil Appeal No. 37-P/XIII-2002, whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 378/1994, dated 10.01.2002, vide which learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 25.10.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that as per the plaintiff he was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 261 min, Khatoni No. 594 min, Khasra No. 664, land measuring 0-11- 44 Hects. According to the plaintiff, land comprised in Khasra Nos. 57, 59 and 60 was in possession of Ghantha son of Punnu, Gasaun and Bhagwan Dass sons of Salahi and Balia son of Dass. Ghantha died intestate and his estate was inherited by his wife Renkoo and after the death of Renkoo, her estate was inherited by Balia, Lohka and Teju. Claim putforth by one Phindu that he was son of Ghantha was rejected by the Revenue Officer. Further, as per the plaintiff, after the death of Balia and Lohka, their estate vested in plaintiff, who thus became sole owner in possession of the suit land. Phindu and his sons Tara and Punnu were being shown in revenue record as sons and grand-sons of Ghantha which entries were liable to be deleted being incorrect entries. Further, as per the plaintiff Tara son of Phindu also died intestate and his estate was inherited by his brother Punnu Ram. Said Punnu Ram i.e. defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be the son of Ghantha on the basis of wrong and incorrect entries in the Shajra Nasab and claimed share in the suit land. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were threatening to occupy forcibly a portion of the suit land and to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he had requested the defendants on many occasions not to do so but they did not pay any heed. In this background, as per the plaintiff, he was entitled for a decree of declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and that the name of Phindu shown in the Shajra Nasab as son of Ghantha was wrong and liable to be deleted. The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs in the plaints:-