HIRU Vs. MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court whereby it allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, have filed the instant regular second appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 25 min, Khatauni No. 57 min, Khasra Nos. 39, 45, 92, 94, 175, 195, 215 and 218 Kitta 8 measuring 6-2-13 bighas, situated in Village Kheyogi, Illaqua Tilli, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. and for permanent prohibitory injunction. It was averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants since the time of their father on payment of 1/2 produce as rent to defendant No.1 and prior to him his father Pira. The plaintiffs were also getting receipts of Galla Batai and after enforcement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, had become owners of the suit land and, therefore, defendant No.1 had no right, title and interest in the suit land. However, with a motive to oust the plaintiffs from the suit land, he in collusion with defendant No.3 hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiffs and executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 taking undue advantage of the wrong entries alienated Khasra Nos. 92 and 94 measuring 0-19-9 bighas of land in favour of his son defendant No.2 and defendants No.2 and 3 in collusion with defendant No.1 started interfering in the suit land and cut and remove the wheat crop therefrom. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted and contested the suit and raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi and maintainability. On merits, it was pleaded that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit land and after sale of some portion thereof, defendant No.2 was owner in possession of that land. It was also averred that the plaintiffs neither were in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants nor had been paying any produce of the land to defendant No.1 nor to his father Pira. The receipts were wrong and did not pertain to the suit land. The part of the suit land had been validly alienated by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 and there was no conspiracy since the land had been sold for consideration of Rs.2000/-.