Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Giano Devi - Appellant/plaintiff
Versus
Bihari Lal & others - Respondents/defendants
RSA No. 332 of 2000
Decided on: 05.09.2014
For the appellant :Mr.Paresh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2, 3(a) to 3(c), 4 to 9, 10(a) to 10(c), 11, 12 and 14.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove ownership and the consequences of failing to seek further relief under the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:
Section 100 - Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 100 of CPC] - The court considered substantial questions of law including the validity of release/relinquishment deed under H.P. Land Records Manual, the ownership of the suit property, and the presumption drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The court also discussed the validity of documents and the issue of adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration as the owner of the land and house, and alternatively, claiming adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Court, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or adverse possession. The documents presented by the defendants were considered valid, and the suit was deemed time-barred. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not seek consequential relief as per the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: The issues included ownership of the suit property, validity of revenue entries, adverse possession, and the applicability of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower courts' findings based on the evidence presented and the legal provisions. It emphasized the importance of proving ownership and the consequences of failing to seek further relief as per the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to be involved.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
By the medium of this Regular Second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as per the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) and has questioned the judgment, dated 19th April, 2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No.50-CA/13 of 1999, titled Giano Devi vs. Bihari Lal and others, read with the judgment, dated 2nd August, 1999, passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. The appeal came up for consideration before this Court on 19th July, 2000 and the same was admitted, of the paper book. The file remained on the docket of this Court till 8th August, 2014 and after examining the file, hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law were framed on the said date:
1. Whether the impugned judgments are perverse?
2. Whether the presumption drawn by the Courts below in terms of Section 90 of the Evidence Act is not legally tenable?
3. Whether the release/relinquishment deed is valid in terms of the provisions of the H.P. Land Records Manual?
4. Whether the suit property can be relinquished/released in terms of the release/relinquishment deed.
5. Whether the Tamliqnama (Ext.D-3), dated 31.1.1966, and the affidavit (Ext.D-4), were the outcome of forgery, fabrication and manipulation?
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Brief Facts:
4. Appellant/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, for grant of decree of declaration on the ground that she is owner in possession of the land and house comprised in Khewat No.52 min, Khatauni No.96 min, Khasra Nos.435, 436 and Sirmaur, H.P. It was prayed that the revenue entries in the name of the defendants/respondents be declared void, illegal and inoperative to the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also prayed, in the alternative, that she had become owner by way of adverse possession and all the rights, title and interest of the defendants stood extinguished, on the grounds taken in the memo of plaint.
5. The defendants (respondents herein) resisted the plaint by filing written statement.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the followings issues came to be settled by the trial Court:
“(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP
(ii) Whether the revenue entries depicting the defendants as owners of the suit property are illegal, void and inoperative, as alleged? OPP
(iii) If issue No.1 is not proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has acquired the title to the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPP
(iv) Whether the suit is not within time? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring the suit by her own acts and admissions, as alleged? OPD
(vii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(viii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
(ix) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. OPD
(x) Whether the defendants have acquired title to the suit land by way of a gift deed executed by Smt.Leela Devi on 31.01.1966 in their favour qua the suit property? If so, its effect? OPD
(xi) Whether the alleged gift deed as referred to in Issue No.10 above executed by Smt.Leela Devi in indisposing state of mind and under undue pressure, misrepresentation and fraud practiced by the defendants on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP
(xii) Whether the gift deed dated 31.01.1966 is for consideration and, therefore, is also void and illegal, as alleged? OPP
(xiii) If issue No.10 is proved in affirmative, whether the defendants are entitled for the decree of possession? OPD
(xiv) Relief."
7. Parties led evidence and the Court of the Senio
