JANKAN DEVI Vs. LEELAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala whereby the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1989 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kangra, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that she is in the cultivating possession as tenant at will of the land comprising Khata No. 10 Min Khatauni No. 34, Khasra Nos. 240, 296 and 441 measuring 0-13-87 hectares situate in Mohal Lakha mandal mauza Pathiar Tehsil and District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") and for mandatory and permanent injunction directing the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") to get the wrong entries about the possession of the suit land corrected in the name of the plaintiff and further the defendant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the alternative, a decree for possession was also prayed for if the plaintiff was not found entitled wholly or partially for the decree as aforesaid for legal and factual defects. Case of the plaintiff, as made not in the plaint, is that she is in the cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant at will. Mutation No. 66 dated 30.3.1983 by which the tenancy of the plaintiff had been extinguished in favour of the defendant is wrong, illegal, void, without jurisdiction, inoperative and is liable to be set, aside and the entries made in the revenue record on the basis of the said mutation in the name of the defendant are wrong and against facts. In the last week of April 1984, defendant started interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and threatened to dispossess her forcibly therefrom and did not desist from his unlawful acts despite requests by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff. In the written statement, he raised the preliminary objections that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the suit was not maintainable and that the suit was time-barred. On merits, it has been averred that the plaintiff was a Gair Marusi tenant under the defendant and after a decision taken in the matter by the Land Reforms Officer on 30.3.1983, out of the total land under the tenancy, the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff and another mutation No. 65 regarding the other land was attested in favour of the plaintiff about which she has deliberately kept silent. Mutations Nos. 65 and 66 had rightly been sanctioned by the competent authority and are not open to challenge in the Civil Court. The claim of the plaintiff, thus, has been denied as a whole.