DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 147/89 on the file of the Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, who lost before both the Courts below challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi dated 1.2.1997 in Civil Appeal No. 59/91 confirming the judgment and decree passed by --the learned trial Judge.

(2.) Having regard to the facts, which have been brought on record and which have been elaborately and extensively noticed by both the Courts below in the judgment under challenge, it is unnecessary for this Court to delve at length with the details of the fact except referring to certain salient facts, namely, the suit came to be filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant for a declaration that the Appellant is owner in possession of the land in dispute and for a consequential order of injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land by virtue of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner passed revoking the Nautor grant made in favour of the Appellant. The case of the Plaintiff was that not only the Appellant was -granted with an assignment under Nautor Rules, but Patta was also granted on 7.1.1987. While the matter stood thus, some private parties who were aggrieved against the grant being made in favour of the Appellant filed an appeal and since in that manner it came to light that the Plaintiff-Appellant, who was not entitled to such grant has mis-represented and by practising fraud obtained the grant in his favour, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 29.6.1988 cancelled the Nautor grant. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff before the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed on 21.11.1988. A further appeal filed before the Financial Commissioner also came to be dismissed. It is, therefore, the Appellant has filed the suit for the relief noticed supra. The suit was contested based on the reasons, which weighed with the authorities of the State to revoke and cancel the Nautor grant obtained by the Appellant. After the trial, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant obtained Nautor grant by fraudulent means and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the orders of cancellation made by the competent authorities. It is useful to extract the findings of the learned trial Judge in this regard in paragraph 7 of his judgment, which read as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant while elaborating the points and substantial questions of law proposed to be raised in the grounds of appeal contended that the Courts below committed an error in assuming that the period of limitation could be condoned even without there being proper evidence in support thereof and the finding that the land already possessed by the Plaintiff was not in dispute is incorrect and vitiated on account of mis-reading and non-consideration of vital materials on record and, therefore, the Court below ought to have sustained the suit claim.