Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Tirath Ram - Appellants
Versus
Chattar Singh - Respondents
RSA No. 115/2003
Decided on : 26.12.2012
For the appellant:Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 3(a) to 3 (d).
The significance of revenue records and the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the H.P. Revenue Act in determining property rights and disputes.
Headnote:
Partition - Property Dispute - H.P. Revenue Act - [Ram Saran Succession, Partition Proceedings, Revenue Entries] - The court discussed the succession of Ram Saran's property among his children, the partition proceedings, and the relevance of revenue entries. The court emphasized the importance of revenue records and upheld the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the H.P. Revenue Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant claiming equal shares in the suit property inherited from their common ancestor, Ram Saran. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had relinquished their shares in favor of the defendant. The lower courts dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Regular Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue entries showing the relinquishment of shares by the plaintiffs had not been rebutted. The court upheld the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the H.P. Revenue Act and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the courts below misread the evidence on record regarding the relinquishment of shares by the plaintiffs and the validity of the partition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unrebutted revenue entries and the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the H.P. Revenue Act to conclude that the plaintiffs had relinquished their shares in favor of the defendant. The court emphasized the significance of revenue records in property disputes.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2002 rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.77-S/13 of 2000.
2. Essential facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’ for convenience sake). According to the plaintiffs, Ram Saran was the common ancestor of the parties to suit, who was succeeded in equal shares by two sons, namely Sant Ram defendant No.1, Nikka Ram plaintiff No.1 and four daughters, namely, Shonku Devi, Mathu Devi, Kaushalya Devi and Batu Devi. It was averred that Basti Ram, another son of Ram Saran died before the death of his father. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Ram Saran and his widow Sarju, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit property in equal share. Defendant filed an application for partition of the land situated in Mauza Bhad in the year 1986 claiming that he had half share in the suit land and the defendant intentionally in collusion with the revenue officials, deleted plaintiffs except plaintiff No.1. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, they were condemned unheard in the partition proceedings. Plaintiff No.1 is an illiterate person. Plaintiffs raised objection before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Shimla to the effect that the defendant was entitled to ½ share. However, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Shimla passed the order of partition of the suit land. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade fixed the case for preparation of mode of partition. Plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade before the Collector, Shimla. Collector, Shimla dismissed the same on 6.10.1988. The revision was also preferred and the same was dismissed on 6.11.1989. According to the plaintiffs, since they had five shares in the suit land to which they have succeeded on account of death of Ram Saran and Sarju, their share is 5/6th and defendant has only 1/6th share in the land. It is in these circumstances, plaintiffs filed suit with the prayer that defendant be restrained from claiming half share in the suit property detailed in the head note of the plaint as per entries in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 situated in Mauza Bhad, Pargana Kalhanj, Tehsil and District Shimla. Defendant was also sought to be restrained from using the entry in the revenue record against the plaintiffs directly or indirectly through his persons, agents, servants, labourers. Etc.
3. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to defendant, the suit was barred by limitation and estoppel. On merits, it was denied that Ram Saran was the common ancestor of the parties and also that the estate of Ram Saran was succeeded by the parties in equal share. It was stated that Smt. Shonku Devi, Mathu Devi, Kaushalya Devi, Batu Devi and Sarju Devi have no right, title or interest in the suit property as they had relinquished their respective shares in favour of the replying defendant 25 years back, vide mutation No.80 dated 20.7.1962. According to the defendant, he was co-sharer in the suit property to the extent of half share. Defendant has denied the assertion made by the plaintiff that the partition proceedings were not held in accordance with law.
4. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs. Pleadings were also amended by the plaintiffs by adding para 8-A to the effect that defendant Sant Ram has transferred the portion of the suit land in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 through sale deed No. 456 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla on 11.5.1994 and gift deed No. 761 registered in the office of Sub Sub-Registrar on 21.11.1989, which according to the plaintiffs were illegal, void and inoperative against the interest of the plaintiffs and they be also restrained from claiming
