SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. BHOTTO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the two courts below declaring the order dated 22.10.1990 of Assistant Collector, First Grade, as null and void and as a consequential relief granting the decree for possession of the land measuring 0 -03 -28 Hects. comprising of Khata No. 174 - Min, Khatoni No. 416 and Khasra No. 416 of Kasba Baijnath, District Kangra, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that she is in possession of the land in dispute. Kesar Mai, the original defendant and the predecessor -in - interest of the present defendants, in order to grab the land in dispute filed an application before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Baijnath for correction of the revenue entries and to record him as in possession of the land in dispute. Alongwith such application, Kesar Mal, above named swore a false affidavit to the effect that the plaintiff was dead. The Assistant Collector First Grade, without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff ordered the correction of the revenue entries in favour of the defendant Kesar Mal. On coming to know about such wrong order, the plaintiff called upon the defendant Kesar Mal to get the same cancelled. Since he failed to do so, the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaring the order dated 22.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector First Grade, as null and void and for injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff qua the land in dispute. In the alternatively, a relief for possession was claimed on the basis of possessary title.

(3.) The defendants, while resisting the suit asserted that their predecessor -in -interest, Shri Kesar Mal had purchased a house property alongwith corresponding share in the Shamlat, including the land in dispute from the plaintiff about fifteen years before the suit and that since then they are coming in possession thereof as owners. The plaintiff after the above said sale had left Baijnath and her whereabouts were not known. Since the defendants were in actual possession of the land in dispute located in front of their house, an application for correction of revenue entries was made to the Assistant Collector First Grade. The order dated 22.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector is legal and valid.