STATE OF H.P. Vs. ISHWAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed, against, the impugned verdict recorded by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, Civil Appeal No. 46-D/03, whereby, he reversed the verdict of the learned trial Court, whereunder, the latter hence dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, for, rendition of a declaratory decree for quashing the apposite mutation, and, consequent therewith reflections, as, carried in the revenue record apposite to the suit land.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 245, Khatauni No. 559, Khasra Nos. 7, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 59, 50, 51, 53 to 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 668, 1039 (30 lots), measuring 2-13-46 hects. Of Mohal Bagani Mauza Sidhbari, Tehsil Dharamsala, District Kangra, H.P. and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the above mentioned land and with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. It is submitted that the plaintiffs entered in possession of the suit land as per the jamabandi for the year 1995-96. Rukmani widow of Sukh Ram had died and only the plaintiffs are her legal representatives. The aforesaid suit land, earlier was entered in the ownership of Shamlat deh in accordance with the share of the proprietors in Shamlat, i.e., entry was Hasab Rasad Malguzari and the land was recorded in possession of Smt. Radho and Smt. Isho as tenants and one Ganesha was shown as their sub-tenant. Thereafter, Sh. Sudama and others, 170 co-sharers (proprietors) executed a gift deed of 29.8.1912 in favour of Mr. Stanley Duntze Turner was entered in the possession of this land. Mr. Turner was also a co-sharer in the Shamlat area being an owner of Sidhbari Tea-Estate. Mr. Turner filed a suit for partition of Shamlat area land and in order to compromise that suit, the Zamindars of the Village Sidhbari agreed to relinquish their rights, title and interest in the suit land in favour of Mr. Turner. After the death of Mr. Turner his brother Mr. Stephon Davis Rilly Duntze Turner, became the owner and in possession of the suit land and then sold the land to Sh. Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for a valid consideration of Rs. 27,000.00. Thereafter, the land mentioned above was entered in the ownership of Shamlat-deh-Hasab-Rasad-Malguzari and in possession of Sukh Ram Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, as a tenant. It is significant to mention here that Sh. Sukh Ram Dass or Mr. Turner, never paid any rent etc., to the proprietory body or any other person with respect to the suit land. The land subsequently recorded in the ownership of Gram Panchayat an thereafter in the ownership of State of H.P., due to promulgations of various Acts of the State, but actually the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest remained in possession of the suit land in assertion of their ownership rights. The plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest never accepted the rights of Gram Panchayat or State of H.P. The Gram Panchayat filed a suit title as Gram Panchayat Sidhbari Vs. Sukh Ram in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala with respect to the suit land and this civil suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on 20.1957 and it was held that Sh. Sukh Ram Dass or his successors-in-interest had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the Gram Panchayat Sidhbari before the High Court of Punjab State at Chandigarh, the latter Curt dismissed the appeal and it was held that Sh. Sukh Ram Dass or his successors-in-interests have become the owners of the suit land. It is submitted that the judgment of the High Court is binding upon the defendant, and the defendants/s name have wrongly been entered in the ownership column of the latest records after the passing of judgment of Honourable High Court. Sukh Ram died during the pendency of the earlier litigation and the plaintiffs are now the only legal heirs of Sh. Sukh Ram and Smt. Rukmani, widow of Sukh Ram had also died and the plaintiff are her only legal representatives. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statements, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua locus standi, cause of action, maintainability, non joinder of necessary parties, time barred, valuation, estoppel etc. On merits, it is submitted that the suit land belongs to the State of H.P. and as such plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the same. The land in dispute was recorded in the ownership of Panchayat Deh prior to the settlement and that was vested in the State of H.P. under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 and accordingly the land was mutated in the name of the State of H.P. The mutation in favour of the State was never challenged before the competent authority within the prescribed period. The plaintiffs have filed this uit to take advantage of wrong revenue entries and as such is required to be put to the strict proof as no presumption of truth can be attached to wrong entries. The suit land is in exclusive ownership and possession of the State of H.P. It is denied that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-ininterest ever remained in possession of the suit land. The suit land is exclusively owned and possessed by the State of H.P. The State of H.P. was never a party to the suit decided by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra on 20.2.1957. Moreover, the land in suit was vested to the State of H.P. , free from all encumbrances under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. It is submitted that the State of H.P., was never a party to first appeal No. 194/57 decided by the Honourable Division Bench of Punjab High Court on dated 6.4.196 Moreover, the decree, if any, passed by the Civil Court is not executable against the State being not a party to the decree.