ANITA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. SUNEEL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost in both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant regular second appeal.

(2.) The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they were joint owners in possession over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 123, 222, 286, 289, kitas-4, Khata/Khatauni No.25/38, measuring 7-17 bighas, situated at Village Silh, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.(hereinafter to be referred to as the suit land) and the defendants had no right, title or interest over the same. It was averred that one Kahnu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and one Govind, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, were sons of Chuhru and real brothers. They were joint owners of property situated in Village Silh, Pargana Tiun and in Village Chalehli, Pargana Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. It was further averred that Govind had filed a suit against Kahnu being Civil Suit No. 35/10 which was decided on 24.09.1970 by the then Ld. Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur. However, after the decision of the suit, a compromise was effected between Govind and Kahnu vide which the suit land was allotted to the share of Kahnu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and mutation No. 339 in respect whereof was sanctioned on 19.03.1972. As such, the decree dated 24.09.1970 passed in Civil Suit No. 35/10 had become inoperative in view of the compromise. It was also averred that Kahnu had subsequently sold a part of the land to the extent of 7-3 bighas in favour of the plaintiffs qua which mutation No. 456 had also been entered on 10.01.1988 and the rest of the land had been inherited by the plaintiffs on the death of Kahnu. Plaintiffs averred that the defendants being clever and shrewd persons had started interfering in the suit land on 20.02.2010 and on being asked, they revealed that they had managed to get a mutation qua the suit land sanctioned in their favour on 22.02.2010. Such mutation No.620 which was entered on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, had become a nullity and inoperative upon the rights of the parties, was illegal and void. The defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and to encumber and alienate the suit land, hence, the suit. On the basis of these averments, it was prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were co-owners in joint possession in equal share over the suit land be passed by declaring the mutation No. 620 dated 22.02.2010 as illegal, wrong, null and void. A further declaration was sought that the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1970 passed in Civil Suit No. 35/10 had become inoperative in view of the compromise between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties and thus had no bearing on the rights of the plaintiffs. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was prayed for and in the alternative a decree for possession was sought.