LAJPAT RAI Vs. TARO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of the batch of four cases, the Counsel on either side represents that RSAs No. 111 of 1990 and 120 of 1990, form one group and RSAs No. 173 and 174 of 1990 form the other group.

(2.) The Defendant/deceased Appellant filed a written statement and apart from raising a preliminary objection, contested and disputed the claim of the Plaintiffs. On such claims and counter-claims the suit came to be tried and on a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the Defendant Lajpat Rai pursued the matter on appeal in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1987 and the learned District Judge, Una, also after hearing the parties on either side confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge resulting in the above second appeal.

(3.) So far as Second Appeal No. 120 of 1990 is concerned, the same was filed by one Jagiri Lal, who was arrayed as proforma-Defendant (second Defendant) in the other suit. The contesting Defendant in the other suit is also the contesting Defendant in the present Civil Suit No. 604 of 1983. The Plaintiffs in the other suit are shown as proforma-Defendants in the present suit. The Plaintiff in this suit has filed the same for possession of land measuring 0.16 Marlas being 17/35 share out of land measuring 1 Kanals 10 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 1355, Khatauni No. 1867, Khasra No. R 87/12/2 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1981-82, situated in village Basal H.B. No. 194, Tehsil and District Una. The land in question was also said to have been owned by the said Ram Pal and it is claimed that the present Plaintiff also purchased the land in his possession from the said Ram Pal on 24.6.1968. The grievance of the present Plaintiff also is, as in the other appeal, on account of the wrong entries in the revenue papers relating to the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 made by showing one, Gauri predecessor of Defendant No. 1 as tenant at will over the whole land of Khasra No. 2918 measuring 1 Kanal 15 Marlas instead of land measuring 9 Marlas which alone was in possession of predecessor-in-interest of the first Defendant. The basis of the claim was almost on identical nature of pleas as in the other case. Likewise, the stand taken by the contesting Defendants in this suit also is the same as in the other and was identical and similar to the one projected in the other suit. On trial, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the first Defendant before the learned First Appellate Judge in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1987 also did not meet with success. Hence the said second appeal.