RANBIR SINGH Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs alongwith their brothers namely Shamsher Singh, Om Sarup and Raghubir Singh, sons of Dev Raj, were in possession as 'Gair Marusi' under the real owners namely Kashmir Singh, Mohan Singh etc. for the last many years, over the land measuring 0-25-42 hectares comprising Khewat No. 21, Khatauni No. 27 bearing Khasra Nos. 614 and 650 as entered in jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 situated n Mohal Barian, Mauza Chauki Maniar, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and mutation to this effect was sanctioned. The entries in the possession column were changed from Gair Marusi to 'Kashat Khudkashat Malkan'. Dev Raj, father of the plaintiffs was one of the co-owner in the suit land as entered in the revenue record. It was averred that after the death of Dev Raj, his property had been inherited by his sons including the plaintiffs and mutation to this effect was attested. The suit land was exclusively possessed by the plaintiffs alongwith their brothers. It was averred that the defendants were strangers and had no concern with the suit land. The defendants alleged that they had purchased the suit land from Kashimr Singh and Mohan Singh etc. and were threatened to interfere in the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit land. They also threatened to raise construction over the suit land and to cut and remove the trees. Lastly, it was prayed by the plaintiffs that the suit be decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua resjudicata and maintainability were taken. On merits, it was averred that the earlier suit with respect to the suit land between the parties had been decreed by the competent court in favour of the defendants and appeal against that judgment was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Una. It was averred that the plaintiffs were co-owners in the suit land and in possession to the extent of their share. The defendants were in possession of the suit land to the extent of their share which they had purchased from earlier co-owners. It was averred that the defendants were owners in possession of the suit land on the strength of the sale deeds dated 20.4.2012 and 3.4.2012. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit land as a tenant as their tenancy was declared as null and void and the entries in the revenue record had rightly been changed regarding tenancy of the plaintiffs. It was averred that the defendants had no intention to raise any construction on the suit land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.