The identification of the suit property and the evidentiary value of the sale deed and revenue entries were crucial in determining ownership rights.

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2014 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 21 FTC/13 of 2007/2008.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, he is co-owner in possession of the property comprised in Khata Khatauni No.4/4, Khasra No.16, 29 and 33 kitas 3 measuring 19 bighas 17 biswas to the extent of 1/4th share in Mauja Cheoni Bhagharth, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. According to the plaintiff, he has purchased 1/4th share in joint land measuring 4-19 bighas by virtue of sale deed from one Smt. Dropti Devi widow of late Sh. Desh Raj on 9.1.1984. He has become owner of the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The fact of sale deed was denied. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 4.11.2003. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit on 4.7.2007. Defendant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Solan bearing Civil Appeal No. 21 FTC/13/2007/2008. He dismissed the same on 11.8.2014. Hence, the present appeal. However, in order to maintain the clarity, it would be apt at this stage to note that defendant had also filed Civil Appeal No. 29 FTC/13 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2009 rendered in Civil Suit No.8/1 of 2000. These were taken up together and decided by a common judgment by the Additional District Judge. However, in the present case, in order to maintain the clarity, though the defendant has also preferred RSA No. 29 of 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2014 rendered in Civil Suit No.8/1 of 2000, but both the Regular Second Appeals are being decided separately.

4. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have passed the judgments and decrees without identifying the suit property. According to him, the suit was not maintainable and remedy available to the plaintiff was only to seek partition of the suit land. He has finally contended that both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence.

5. I have heard Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below carefully.

6. Since all the substantial questions of law are interlinked and interconnected, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence.

7. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. According to him, he has bought the suit land vide sale deed Ex.DX. He has purchased the suit property from Smt. Dropti Devi.

8. PW-2 Sri Ram has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A. According to him, plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since 1984. Defendant has no right to interfere with his possession.

9. Defendant has appeared as DW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land. The sale deed was outcome of manipulation and fraud. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that Dropti Devi had executed sale deed of 1/4th share qua the suit land in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. He has also admitted that plaintiff was co-owner of the suit land on the basis of sale deed. He has also admitted that one suit for possession filed against the plaintiff was dismissed.

10. DW-2 Ram Kishan has deposed that plaintiff was not owner of the suit land. DW-3 Jamuna Dass has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-3/A. According to him also,