Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Kuldip Singh, J.
Moti Ram, - Appellants
Vs.
Ranbir Singh - Respondent
RSA No. 328 of 2001.
Decided on : 3-10-2012.
Mutation - Land Dispute - Ex.PY mutation No.10 of sale of khasra No. 576/3 measuring 143 square decimeters by Jog Nath, Dina Nath in favour of Ranbir Singh has been attested on 15.1.1987. In Ex. PX old khasra No. 1772/1649/1149/1102/107min has been given new khasra No. 576. The respondent No. 1 has established his title and possession over the suit land. The stacking of fuel wood and heaps of grass and nothing more would not constitute the possession of appellants over the suit land. The possession follows title. The learned lower appellate court on the basis of material on record has rightly concluded that respondent No. 1 is owner in possession of the suit land. The view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge is in consonance with the evidence on record. There is no perversity in the impugned judgement, decree. The suit is based upon specific khasra number, therefore, identification of suit land by way of demarcation was not required. There is no merit in the appeal. The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are decided against the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants, claiming ownership and possession of a specific piece of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and granted the injunction in favor of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had established his title and possession over the suit land, and the stacking of fuel wood and heaps of grass by the appellants did not constitute possession. The court concluded that the respondent was the owner in possession of the suit land and upheld the lower appellate court's decision.
Issues: The issues included ownership and possession of the suit land, maintainability of the suit, entitlement to injunction, and suppression of material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the mutation document attesting the sale of the land to the respondent, as well as the absence of evidence supporting the appellants' claim of possession. The court also emphasized that the suit was based on a specific khasra number, obviating the need for demarcation of the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the injunction in favor of the respondent was upheld.
Kuldip Singh, Judge.
1. The defendants No. 1 to 4 have assailed the judgement, decree dated 25.4.2001 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 36-S/13 of 1999 decreeing the suit of respondent No. 1 for permanent prohibitory injunction by reversing the judgement, decree dated 7.4.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. 3, Addl. Charge Court No.2, Rohroo, Distt. Shimla in Civil Suit No. 146-1 of 1992.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 had filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against appellants, who were impleaded defendants No. 1 to 4. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were proforma defendants No. 5 and 6 in the suit. The appellants No. 2 and 3 are the sons and appellant No. 4 is the wife of Moti Ram appellant No.1.
3. The pleaded case of respondent No.1 is that he purchased land comprised in khewat No. 224, khatauni No. 359, khasra Nos. 576/3, measuring 143.00 square decimeters, situated in Notified Area Committee, Rohroo from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and mutation was attested in favour of respondent No.1 on 15.1.1987. The appellants made overtacts in the last one year and threatened to interfere in the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit land. The appellants are threatening to interfere over the suit land by stacking heaps of grass over the suit land.
4. The suit was contested by appellants by filing written statement. They took the preliminary objections of maintainability in respect of land comprised in khasra No. 576/3/1. It has been pleaded that the alleged vendor was not in possession of said land nor respondent No. 1 ever put in possession of said land, hence suit for injunction without possession is not maintainable. Khasra No. 576/3/1 is owned and possessed by the appellants over which the appellants have planted trees for the last more than twenty-two years. The appellants have been stacking fuel wood and heaps of grass over this parcel of land. There is permanent boundary in the shape of barbed wire at the spot. The respondent No.1 had filed false complaint under sections 145, 107 Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohroo. The possession of the suit land remained with the appellants.
5. The replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. (Viz. Khasra No. Hall 576/3 khewat No. 244, Khatauni No. 359).
2. Whether the defendants are interfering with possession of the plaintiff? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction to the suppression of material facts? OPD.
5. Relief
Issue No. 1 was answered partly in affirmative, issue No. 3 in affirmative, the issues No. 2 and 4 were answered in negative and the suit was dismissed on 7.4.1999. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal, which has been allowed by learned Addl. District Judge on 25.4.2001, the judgement, decree dated 7.4.1999 of the trial court have been set-aside. The appellants have been restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to land comprised in khewat No. 224, khatauni No. 359, khasra No. 576/3 measuring 143 square decimeters, situated within the Notified Area Committee, Rohroo, hence the second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the findings as recorded by learned lower appellate court are based upon conjectures and surmises and since reliance has been placed on documents Ex. PX, copy of khatauni and Ex. PY copy of mutation, therefore, in the absence of proof to the title of plaintiffs, suit could not be decreed?
2. Whether for want of getting the boundaries determined before filing of suit, claim of plaintiff is vague and no reliance can be placed thereon?
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the a
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
