NIRMALA DEVI Vs. BALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby it decided the issue of jurisdiction against them, have filed the instant civil revision petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan camp at Sarahan which was registered as Civil Suit No. 8/1 of 2011, thereby seeking decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-defendants stating Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes therein that Tulsa wife of late Yanu was owner of land as detailed in the plaint which was measuring 77 bighas and 9 biswas situated in revenue village Nei Lothan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54. As per plaint, she inducted Jalam Singh, father of plaintiff as Gair Maurusi tenant in respect of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 19/40 Khasra No. 40, 42 plots 2 total measuring 6 bigha 1 biswa situate in village Nei Lothan and Tulsa became owner in possession of total area of 71 bighas and 8 biswa. It is further averred that half share of Tulsa was given by her to Jalam Singh, who died later and his estate was acquired by the plaintiff. As per his plaint, he became owner of the land entered in Khata/Khatauni No. 19/40 Khasra Nos. 40, 42 plots 2 total measuring 6 bighas and 1 biswa and total ownership of plaintiff was 41 bighas and 15 biswas. It was further averred that in November, 2010 defendant threatened to disposses the plaintiff. He thereafter enquired and came to know that entries of gair maurusi tenant in the name of his father had been deleted. Partition proceedings vide case No. 1/9 of 2009 titled Balwant Singh vs. Bala Ram were decided on 30.11.2009 and on the basis of such partition proceedings further entries in revenue record were incorporated.

(3.) That the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking therein preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppels. On merits, averments as made in the plaint were denied. It was averred in the written statement that Gurdiya son Paras Ram was owner in possession of suit land to the extent of - 1/2 share vide mutation No. 35 dated 16.9.1955 as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54. It was denied that father of plaintiff namely Jalam Singh ever remained as tenant over the portion in possession of Gurdiya. It was averred in the written statement that plaintiff and his father remained in possession of the suit land together and as such there is no question of father being tenant under his son. Tulsa gifted land to Bala Ram being son of Jalam Singh vide mutatin No. 47 dated 26.5.1966 as Gurdiya acquired ownership on 16.09.1955 about 10- 1/2 years ago. Jalam Singh and Bala Ram son of Jalam Singh were living jointly and as such were owners and there is no question of tenancy of father under son as the same is against the law. It was averred that in pursuance to the partition proceedings. The land comprised in Khasra No. 40 and 42 measuring 6-1 bighas i.e. suit land has been allotted to Bala Ram and according to the entries of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11, he is owner of this entire land. After partition, the parties were put in respective possession of their portions and such proceedings were never challenged by Bala Ram and as such same has attained finality. It was also stated that since Tulsa gifted her share to Bala Ram as such the plaintiff had no right over the share of Gurdiya who was owner of the property. It was further averred that since defendant purchased land from Gurdiya from his share as such there is no question of plaintiff being tenant over the portion belonging to Gurdiya.