GANGA DHAR Vs. GANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by appellant Shri Ganga Dhar, who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2006, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed and the decision of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), rendered in Civil Suit No. 81 of 2003 (2002), decided on 31.05.2006, was affirmed.

(2.) The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and refuted the contention of the plaintiff. A written statement was filed wherein preliminary objection of maintainability, limitation, estopped, valuation, suppression of material facts and jurisdiction etc. were raised. On merits defendant No. 1 denied that Shri Dilla was wrongly recorded as tenant over the suit land and his tenancy extinguished on his death. It was also denied that Shri Ruldu relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff or on his death the tenancy in his favour was extinguished. It was contended that Shri Dilla was owner-inpossession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1834/309 on payment of rent since time immemorial under the plaintiff. Shri Ruldu (father of defendant No. 1) was tenant in possession over land having Khasra No. 310 on payment of rent under the plaintiff. As per defendant No. 1, Shri Dilla, being tenant in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1834/309 became owner of the suit land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and after his death defendant No. 1, being his only legal heir, inherited the land. Likewise, Shri Ruldu became owner of the suit land having Khasra No. 310 under Section 104 of the the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and after his death defendant No. 1 inherited his estate and became owner-in-possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 has further averred that plaintiff procured illegal orders of correction of revenue entries without impleading defendant No. 1 or her father and uncle as party. The plaintiff obtained order dated 21.03.1983 from revenue officer and on appeal by defendant No. 1, vide order dated 22.11.1983 of Collector, Kullu, was set aside and the case was remanded back to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu for decision afresh. The plaintiff preferred an appeal assailing the order of Collector, Kullu, and it was dismissed by Divisional Commissioner and ultimately Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu, vide order dated 16.06.2000, dismissed the application of the plaintiff for rectification and it was held that Shri Ruldu never relinquished his tenancy rights and continued to be in possession and defendant No. 1 has become owner of the land by operation of law, being the sole and exclusive legal heir of Shri Ruldu. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against order dated 16.06.2000, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, was dismissed by Collector Kullu, vide order dated 29.03.2004 and mutation No. 5084 attested in favour of defendant No. 1 as absolute owner-inpossession of the entire suit land. With the above averments, defendant No. 1 prayed dismissal of the suit preferred by the plaintiff.