Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
R.S.A. No. 302 of 2012-A Decided on : 07.05.2013
Viptu Ram Versus Ganga Dass
POSSESSION - Nautor Land Rules, 1968 - Sections 23 and 54 of the Indian Contract Act - Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [KEYWORD] - [POSSESSION] - [Nautor Land Rules, 1968, Sections 23 and 54 of the Indian Contract Act] - The Court discussed the enforceability of an agreement, the possession of the land, and the applicability of the Nautor Land Rules, 1968. The Court highlighted the restrictions on alienation of Nautor land, the enforceability of the agreement, and the possession of the land. The Court also discussed the limitations on amending the relief for specific performance of the agreement and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for retaining possession of the land. The defendants contested the suit, and the lower courts dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed a Regular Second Appeal, which was also dismissed by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land and that the agreement entered into between the parties was not enforceable. The Court also concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal.
Issues: The issues included the enforceability of the agreement, the possession of the land, the limitations on amending the relief for specific performance of the agreement, and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreement entered into between the parties was not enforceable, and the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land. The Court also concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the Court found no merit in the appeal.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13.01.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1999.
2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit against Shri Tara Chand and Shri Ganga Ram. Shri Tara Chand died on 03.07.1996. His legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated, 05.11.1997. According to the plaintiff, Shri Tara Chand was owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 15/27, Khasra No. 1098/466, measuring 4-1-18 bighas, situated in Village Tatapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. On 24.12.1988, defendant Tara Chand (now deceased), received a sum of 9000/-. According to the plaintiff, he agreed to execute a registered sale deed after 14.07.1996 and delivered the possession of the land on 24.12.1988. He is in continuous possession of the same. According to him, Tara Chand cleverly made sale of the suit land vide registered document for a sum of Rs.1,000/- in favour of defendant No. 2, Ganga Ram. Plaintiff has filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against the defendants to retain his possession over the suit land unless he is ejected under due process of law. The cause of action has accrued to him on 03.05.1996. Smt. Sumanu Devi was brought on record as legal representative of defendant Tara Chand.
3. According to the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, her husband has sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 24.12.1988 for a sum of Rs.9000/-. Tara Chand has received the amount from the plaintiff and the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and late husband of the defendant, Smt. Sumanu Devi. The possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff by the husband of the defendant on 24.12.1988. He was continuing in actual and physical possession of the same. Since there was a legal hurdle in execution and registration of the sale deed qua the suit land before 14.07.1996, therefore, the husband of the defendant has agreed to get the same executed and registered after the aforesaid date.
4. The defendant No. 2 also filed the written statement. According to him, Tara Chand has no legal right to execute the agreement and the plaintiff was out of possession. According to him, Tara Chand has executed a sale deed for a consideration of Rs.1,000/- on 2 1.03.1996 in his favour. He was put in possession of the suit land. He was in continuous possession of the suit land after the execution of sale deed.
5. The plaintiffs filed separate replications to the written statements filed by the defendants. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. framed the issues on 0 1.12.1998. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi on 08.11.1999. The appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment, dated 08.11.1999 before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi. The same was dismissed on 05.03.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 212 of 2001 in this Court. The judgment and decree was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the lower Appellate Court with a direction to not only decide the application but also the appeal on or before 31st March, 2012. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 13.01.2012. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.
6. Defendant, Smt. Sumanu Devi also died during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal. An application bearing CMP No . 1144 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff for deleting the name of Smt. Sumanu Devi, i.e., respondent No. 1. The same was allowed by this Court on 21.11.2012. The name of Smt. Sumnu Devi was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents.
7. Mr.
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
