Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
RAM SWAROOP - Appellant
Versus
MANDIR THAKRAN KALYAN RAI - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 8 of 1998
Decided On : 11/15/2001
Counter-claim - Land Dispute - H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 - Order VIII Rule 6A(1) of the Code - [Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987] - [Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII, C.P.C.] - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the effect of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A(1) of the Code in relation to the counter-claim filed by the defendant. The court also examined the admissibility of various documents and the legal evidence presented by both parties in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a land and for possession, while the defendant contested the suit, claiming ownership of the land based on an oral sale from the previous owner. The trial Court decided in favor of the plaintiff, and the appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower appellate Court did not commit any substantial error of procedure or law in its findings, and the evidence presented by the defendant was not sufficient to prove ownership of the land. The court also discussed the admissibility of various documents and the legal evidence presented by both parties.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the land, the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, and the entitlement to eject the defendant from the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower appellate Court's findings were based on legal evidence and did not warrant interference in second appeal. The court also emphasized the importance of substantial questions of law in second appeals.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
M.R. Verma, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 8.11.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge (2), Nurpur, appellant-defendant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) has preferred this second appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter referred as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1172 to 1176 and 1254 measuring 242-99 square metres, situate in Up Mohal Niazpur, Mauza Nurpur Khas, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, is owned and possessed by it and the order dated 10.1.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer, Kangra is illegal, null and void and not binding on it and for possession of the suit land by demolition of the structure standing on the suit land.
3. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is that the suit land was let out to Munu Ram on 3.4.1954 on annual rent of Rs. 18 by Nanak Chand, the then owner thereof. Subsequently, the said owner donated the suit land to the plaintiff Mandir and thereafter said Munu Ram started paying the rent to Shanta Nand, the then Mohatmin of Mandir. Munu Ram constructed a tin-roof shed on a portion of the suit land and also installed a rice shelling machine, one Atta Chakki and one cotton grinding machine. The defendant also started working with Munu Ram, therefore, alongwith Munu Ram he was also accepted as a tenant on the suit land. After the death of-.Munu, the defendant paid rent of the suit land to the present Mohatnreen of the Mandir, namely, Des Raj. for two years i.e. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The defendant, however, in collusion with the revenue settlement staff obtained an order dated 10.1.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer in his favour whereby an entry showing the defendant as owner of the suit land was ordered to be made. The order dated 10.1.1989 was passed at the back of the plaintiff who was never made a party to the proceedings and is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and thus null and void. After the passing of the order dated 10.1.1989, the defendant asserted title over the suit land and thus forfeited his right of tenancy and is therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit land and the plaintiff is entitled for possession thereof after demolition of the construction raised thereon.
4. The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement he raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to institute the suit, that, the suit is barred by time and is not properly valued for the purposes pf Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was claimed that Des Raj is not the Mohatmim of the Mandir and has no concern with the suit land. The brother of the defendant, namely, Bakshi Ram purchased the suit land by oral sale from Nanak Chand, the then owner of the suit land in the year 1954 for consideration in the sum of Rs. 90 and thereafter the suit land remained in their possession. The defendant7 has further claimed that he was living with said Bakshi Ram and used to help him in the business of Atta Chakki and rice shelling machine etc. installed over the suit land. Bakshi Ram died issueless on 4.4.1987 and being his legal heir defendant inherited the suit property. It is further averred that the order dated 10.1.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer is according to the factual position on the spot. It has been denied that Munnu Ram was inducted as a tenant over the suit land or he was paying rent. The defendant, thus, denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto.
5. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement and reaffirming the claim as made in the plaint.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following i
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
