Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Sh. Romel Singh – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Gur Devi & Ors. – Respondents
RSA No. 290 of 2008
Decided On : 31-10-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate.
The principle that a reversioner must seek a decree for possession in a representative capacity and implead the nearest reversioners to establish locus standi.
Headnote:
Possession - Civil Suit - Khata No.76, Khatauni No. 88, Khasra No. 55, 65, 100, 116, 128, 132, 179, 195, 200, 216, 222, 225, 309, 329, 805, 810, 921, 925 and 927 - Khata No.21, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No.588 - H.P. - RSA No.189 of 1979 - AIR 1966 SC 216
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land against the defendants, claiming to be the reversioner after the death of the original vendor. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, arguing that the suit should not have been dismissed solely because the nearest reversioners had not filed a suit for possession.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to implead the nearest reversioners in the previous suit and did not seek a decree for possession in a representative capacity. As a result, the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the instant suit. The court upheld the dismissal of the suit by the lower courts.
Issues: The entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief of possession, limitation, and locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's failure to implead the nearest reversioners and seek a decree for possession in a representative capacity led to the court's finding that the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were maintained and affirmed.
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for possession stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court dismissed his appeal besides obviously affirmed the trial Court's judgment and decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Romel Singh has filed the civil suit for rendition of a decree for possession against the defendants. It has been pleaded that subject matter of the suit is the land comprised in Khata No.76, Khatauni No. 88, Khasra No. 55, 65, 100, 116, 128, 132, 179, 195, 200, 216, 222, 225, 309, 329, 805, 810, 921, 925 and 927, measuring 1-30- 17 hectares and 3/32 shares out of the land comprised in Khata No.21, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No.588 situated in village Dangra, Mauza Garli, Tehsil Dehra, District, Kangra, H.P. It has been pleaded that the suit land is recorded to be in the ownership and possession of defendants No.7 to 9 along with predecessor-in-interest of defendants NO.1 to 6 including other co-sharers and one Gittu son of Dalipa sold the suit land vide register sale deed of 3.2.1965 to one Man Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 4 and Hukam Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.5 and 6 along with defendants No.7 to 9 and thereafter the plaintiff filed civil suit No.107 of 1972, tilted as Romel Singh vs. Sh. Roshan Lal and others, challenging the sale deed as void and ineffective and its being not binding upon the plaintiff along with other co-sharers against their reversionary interest after the death of alienor. The plaintiff has also challenged the sale deed on the grounds that the suit being ancestral and its being without legal necessity. It has been further pleaded that his previous suit was dismissed on 26.7.1976 and thereafter he preferred the appeal No.146/1976 before the learned District Judge and the appeal was also dismissed on 14.5.1979, whereafter, the plaintiff has preferred the Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No.189 of 1979 before the High Court and that appeal was allowed and thereby the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below stood set aside and in sequel the plaintiff's suit stood decreed. The plaintiff has further pleaded that after the death of original vendor Gittu on 17.1.1974, during the pendency of the previous suit and thereby the plaintiff has pleaded and claimed to be reversioner and thereby entitled for decree for possession of the suit land.
3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, the defendants have admitted the previous litigation inter se the parties. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is not the near reversioner of the deceased vendor, and, as such, he is not entitled to recover possession from them. According to them only S/Sh. Roshan and Magar are the nearest reversioners of late Shri Gitu and as such only they can claim possession of the suit land.
4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is incapacitated to maintain the suit in the presence of Roshan Lal, Maghar son of Banka, if so its effect? OPD.
4. Relief.
6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the
