Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Ved Prakash & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kamla Devi & Anr. - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 628 of 2008
Decided On : 06-08-2021
res judicata - Property Dispute - Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 - Evidence Act - Transfer of Property Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and possession of a land against the defendants, claiming ownership based on inheritance. The defendants contested the suit, asserting their ownership and possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed, raising substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of documentary evidence, validity of sale deeds, adverse possession, and bonafide purchaser status of the defendants.
Issues: The issues included ownership, possession, validity of sale deeds, entitlement to relief of injunction and possession, construction without permission, estoppel, limitation, valuation of the suit, and bonafide purchaser status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the findings of adverse possession in a previous suit operated as res judicata between the co-defendants. It held that the defendants were bonafide purchasers based on consistent entries in the revenue record, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their case.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, along with any pending applications, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The Plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost before both the Courts below, have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Plaintiffs' and 'defendants').
2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, injunction and in alternative for possession against the defendants before the learned Trial Court on the ground that the sale deeds dated 07.07.1995 and 28.12.1995 in favour of defendant No. 1, Smt. Kamla Devi are wrong, null and void and the defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from encroaching upon the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 179/272 Khasra No. 926 and 927 measuring 345.95 sq. meters, situated in Muhal Tarna, Mandi town, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').
3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded before the lower court is that Amar Chand had previously instituted Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 for declaration against Girja Nand, Dhananjai and Smt. Titli Devi to the effect that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties. Said Civil Suit No. 14 of 1990 was dismissed on 13.12.1991 and it was held that Girja Nand had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. After decision of the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 14/1990, Girja Nand moved an application for correction of entries in the revenue record in accordance with the said judgment and decree but in the meantime, Girja Nand died on 12.02.1994. the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are legal heirs of late Girja Nand and they have inherited the suit land of Girja Nand and thus they are owners in possession of the same. The plaintiffs met defendant No. 2 on 19.04.1996 at Sarkaghat when defendant No. 2 told the plaintiff No. 1 that the defendant No. 1 had purchased share of Dhananjai of the suit land and the defendant No. 2 asked the plaintiff No. 1 to get the suit land partitioned. But the plaintiff No. 1 told defendant No. 2 that Dhananjai had no title in the suit land as per aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.12.1991, therefore, the sale deeds executed by Dhananjai in favour of defendant No. 1 are illegal, null and void. Thereafter the plaintiff No. 1 obtained copies of sale deed. During the intervening night of 11-12th May, 1996, the defendants No. 1 and 2 behind the back of the plaintiffs constructed wooden khokha on a vacant portion of the suit land. Thereafter the plaintiff No. 1 came from Sarkaghat and he asked the labourers of the defendants to stop construction work on the suit land but they did not stop the same. Hence, the plaintiffs had to institute the suit against the defendants.
4. The defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They asserted in their written statement that the entries in the revenue record showing the defendant No. 1 to be owner in possession of the suit land are correct. Said judgment and decree dated 13.12.1991 were obtained by Girja Nand by suppressing the true facts and as such the same is not executable being time barred.
The defendant no. 1 is bonafide purchaser of the suit land for a consideration. The defendant No. 1 is in physical possession of the suit land after purchasing the same from co-owner Dhananjai. The defendant No. 1 had constructed a pacca RCC House of four rooms, prior to the institution of the suit to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The contesting defendants also assailed the suit on preliminary objections such as estoppel, limitation and valuation of the suit. In nutshell the contesting defendants refuted the case of the plaintiffs and they sought dismissal of the same.
5. The plaintiffs filed replication whereby they again reiterated and reasserted their own case and refuted the case of the defendants as pleaded in the written statement.
6. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are absolute owners in possession of the suit land as
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
