CHUNI LAL Vs. KAPOORI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants, who after having lost in both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in the learned Trial Court on the allegations that they had been owners in possession of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes land described in khata/khatauni No. 55 min/75 min. Khasra No. 310 measuring 0-07-43 hectares situated in revenue estate and Mauza Takipur (Kangra). The suit land was owned and possessed by Shri Duni Chand son of Shri Philo in the first instance. Shri Duni Chand had died prior to 1970 and after his death, the suit land had devolved on his widow Smt. Simro Devi and the plaintiffs. Smt. Simro Devi (mother of the plaintiffs) had died in the year 1989. The mutation of the suit land falling to the share of Smt. Simro Devi had been attested in favour of the plaintiffs on 26.08.1989 and the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land. They had been owners in possession of the land adjacent to the suit land. The plaintiffs were rustic and poor village women. The defendants had started taking undue advantage of the poverty of the plaintiffs and started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land w.e.f. March, 1993. The defendants had been requested not to do so, but without any result. The defendants had also threatened to raise construction in the suit land. The plaintiffs had sought demolition of the construction, if any, done by the defendants in the suit land. Alternatively, the plaintiffs had sought relief of possession in case the defendants had been successful in taking forcible possession of the suit land or had been otherwise treated in possession and, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit on the ground of limitation, estoppel, and maintainability in preliminary objections. It was also stated that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by principles of res-judicata and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial thereof. On merit, the defendants denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land and it was stated that the defendants had acquired rights of ownership on account of their tenancy of the suit land under Section 104(2) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, as such, the question of interference with their possession by the defendants, did not rise for consideration. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit on the strength of the entries of jamabandies wherein they had been recorded owners in possession of the suit land. Such entries were wrong, illegal and not binding on the defendants. The defendants had applied for correction of entries of the jamabandies and the Land Reform Officer, vide order dated 04.09.1993, had passed orders for recording the defendants in possession of the suit land as tenants. The plaintiffs had instituted an appeal against the order dated 04.09.1993 and their appeal had been rejected by the Collector vide order dated 22.07.1996. The defendants denied having threatened to raise construction in the suit land. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief, much less to the discretionary relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. They were also not entitled to a decree of possession of the suit land.