CHANDAN KUMAR Vs. SUBH KARAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kanta Devi, respondent -1, as per order dated 9.3.2009 had died and steps were not taken for bringing on record her legal representatives. The memo of parties would show that her two sons Subh Karan and Kultar Singh are already on record as respondents in the appeal. Therefore, estate of Smt. Kanta Devi deceased is represented by her sons Subh Karan and Kultar Singh in the above appeal and, therefore, the appeal has not abated, it survives. The name of Smt. Kanta Devi is ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents. The Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties. In this judgment, Subh Karan and Kultar Singh are referred respondents No. 1 & 2, respectively.

(2.) The appellant who was defendant in the suit has filed this appeal against judgment, decree dated 6.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 13-N/XIII-1995 affirming judgment, decree dated 21.12.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge (II), Nurpur in Civil Suit No. 66/1991.

(3.) The respondents 1, 2 and Smt. Kanta Devi had filed the suit for possession by demolition of construction on land comprised in khasra No. 1407, 1408, 1409 plots 3, measuring 0-09-85 HM (2 Kanals 12 Marlas) situated in Tikka and Mauza, Kehrian, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra vide Misal Haquiat for the year 1984-85. The suit was filed on the basis of title on the ground that the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Tek Chand father of appellant had encroached a part of suit land in July, 1984 and raised construction thereon. The father of the appellant got his name recorded in the revenue record as 'Davedar Beh' on the suit land. There was no agreement to sell the suit land to Tek Chand. Rumal Singh predecessor of respondents requested appellant and Tek Chand during his life time to remove construction and hand over possession of suit land. After the death of Tek Chand, appellant was requested to remove construction from the suit land and hand over its possession but appellant ultimately refused to remove construction and hand over possession of suit land to respondents, therefore, the suit was filed.