MANSA RAM Vs. KEHSAV RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of, by a common verdict, since, they arise, from, verdict(s) rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, (i) whereunder, it upheld the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court, whereunder, the latter had declined, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction, (ii) besides the relief of declaration, (iii) and, rather decreed, the defendants' counter claim, for rendition of a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction. Reiteratedly, through RSA No.171 of 2018, and, through RSA No. 172 of 2018, as arise, from, the verdicts pronounced by the learned First Appeal Court, respectively, upon, Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017, and, upon Civil Appeal No.26 of 2017, the plaintiff concerned, hence, a challenge, upon, the afore rendered decrees, as, rendered in affirmation, to the apt verdict, and, decree rendered by the learned trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction with respect to land bonre in Khewat No. 74/74, Khatauni No. 108/108, Khasra No.27, measuring 0-19-06 bighas, situated in Muhal Okhali/665, Illaqua Dahar, Sub Tehsil Bali Chowki, District Mandi H.P. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land is coming in his peaceful and physical possession for the last about 42 years. It is averred that the suit land has been wrongly recorded in the names of the defendants. His predecessor-in-interest, namely, Kesru was coming in possession of the suit land, who died about 42 years ago. Thereafter, his father namely Sh. Saran Dass was coming in possession of the suit land. Both of them died. At the time of death of Kesru, he was about 6 years old. |The suit land remained barren for about 8-9 years. He developed the same. His grand father was rustic villager, but his uncles were very clever. They manipulated revenue entries during settlement operation. This fact came to his knowledge in May, 2013, when the defendants claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land. They were asked to get the revenue entries corrected but in vain. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 7 and 13 contested the suit and filed composite written statement,a nd counter claim, wherein they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is submitted that the revenue entries are correct. Sh. Kesru was not coming in possession of the suit land. Sh. Kesru had no right over the suit land. The suit land was in actual possession of Gosru and Manghru. Their possession was duly recorded in revenue record. They were conferred proprietary rights of the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiff is in continuous, peaceful and hostile possession. It is alleged that plaintiff since first week of July, 2014 has started threatening to dispossess them from the suit land in an illegal manner. It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and counter claim may be decreed.