LAWS(HPH)-2009-9-61

GAURJU Vs. SH SHAM SINGH AND ORS

Decided On September 11, 2009
GAURJU Appellant
V/S
SH SHAM SINGH AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 29.3.1996 whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 137/1 of 1986 dated 11.11.1986.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt.Karju predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit against Amar Singh, Nain Singh and Smt.Gaurju Devi, widow of Nain Singh who has since expired and is represented by her legal representatives. In this suit, plaintiff Karju claimed herself to be sister of Pohlo Ram. It was alleged that Pohlo Ram was a non-occupancy tenant of the land measuring 10 biswas situated in Khata/Khatoni No. 57/90, Khasra No. 488 in village Bari Majherwan, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur under the predecessors of Amar Singh and Nain Singh. It was alleged that Pohlo had been tenant on the suit land for more than 40 years and became owner of the same by acquisition of tenancy rights. Pohlo died in the year 1980 and since the plaintiff was his sole sister she inherited the land in question. Amar Singh and Nain Singh sold 4 biswas out of the suit land to defendant No. 3 Gaurju Devi. It was alleged that this was a fraudulent transaction. Amar Singh and Nain Singh had no right to transfer any land since Pohlo had already become owner of the land. The defendants contested the suit.

(3.) According to them, Pohlo was never inducted as non- occupancy tenant and as such never became owner. It was contended that the sale deed was legal and valid. Various issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. One of the points raised was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Trial Court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It held that Pohlo was a non-occupancy tenant and acquired the ownership rights pursuant to the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It also held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appeal filed by Smt.Gaurju Devi before the District Judge, Bilaspur has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal.