PREM SINGH Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-4-1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Theog, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') has been set aside and the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for perpetual injunction. Case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint, briefly, is that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land comprising khasra Nos. 406, 413 and 423 measuring 3 bighas 11 biswas situate in chak Koti, Pargna Dharti, Teh. Thoog (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). However, the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') are threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land without any right, title and interest and to achieve their goal of dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land they trespassed into the suit land and cut and removed some of the maize therefrom in the last week of the month of September 1980 and are time and again threatening to interfere in the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested. Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement, raised a preliminary objection that Mohinder Singh has wrongly been described as Bhinder Singh and is a minor who has been sued as a major. On merits, while denying the claim of the plaintiffs, it was averred that Padam Singh defendant is the owner in possession of land comprising khasra Nos. 406 and 413 by virtue of a Will executed in his favour by one Nanda on 20-10-1971 and that said Nanda had given land khasra Nos. 295, 406, 413, 568, 572, 294 and 359 measuring 10 bighas 14 biswas in chak Koti for cultivation much before the execution of the Will. It is further averred that the aforesaid land except khasra No. 423 is in possession of defendant Padam Singh as owner and the other defendants have nothing to do with the suit land. Any interference in the suit land has been denied and the entries in the revenue record in respect of the suit land have been denied being incorrect. Hence the claim as made by the plaintiffs has been denied.