YASH PAL Vs. MEENA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Defendants are the appellants, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against Shri Santan Singh predecessor-in-interest of the appellants qua land comprising Khata No. 13/11, Khatauni No. 78, Khasra Nos. 138, 142, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 494/141, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150 to 154, measuring 44-11 bighas situate in village Chortia Banogta, pargana Sain, Tehsil Nahan, as gair maurusi tenant.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that he was recorded as gair maurusi tenant of the suit land under State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966-67 and thereafter conferred proprietary rights of the suit land vide mutation No. 66, dated 28.09.1968 under the H.P. Big Land Estate Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1953 on payment of Rs. 620.09 paise as compensation and thus had become owner of the suit land and since then had been in cultivatory possession of the same as owner. It was averred that the father of the defendant was politically influential person, who in connivance with revenue staff manipulated oral sale of 3/4th share of the suit land from the plaintiff in his favour on the same day when the proprietary rights were conferred upon the plaintiff vide mutation No. 66, dated 28.09.1968. The subordinate revenue staff attested mutation No. 67 on 28.09.1968 showing sale of 3/4th share of the suit land in favour of Jaswant Singh father of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he never sold 3/4th share out of the suit land to the Jaswant Singh nor possession was delivered to him. It was further averred that neither Jaswant Singh nor the defendant ever remained in possession of the suit land. It was due to the illegal, fraudulent and wrong attestation of mutation No. 67 and reflection of the same in the subsequent revenue entries, casts a cloud on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction.