BHAGAT RAM Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been directed by the Defendant No. 2 against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1992 of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class (2), Shimla, was set-aside and the suit of the Respondent No. (1) (Plaintiff) was decreed for declaration and injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these. The Plaintiff sometime in the year 1964 orally purchased land measuring 19 Biswas comprising of khasra No. 143 from one Mathu Ram for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. The necessary mutation, being No. 120 was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff on 21.3.1965. Since after such purchase, the Plaintiff is coming in possession of such land as exclusive owner thereof. Sometime in May 1986 the Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No. 2, who is the real brother of the Plaintiff, in connivance with the revenue officials got a mutation being No. 153 sanctioned on 8.2.1970 behind the back of the Plaintiff, showing him to be the co-owner of the said land alongwith the Plaintiff to the extent of 1/2 share. On the basis of such wrong mutation the Defendant No. 2 started interference with the exclusive possession and ownership of the Plaintiff. Hence a suit was filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) Following issues were framed by the learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties: