Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S.RANA, J.
Jarmej Singh S/o Rasila Singh and others – Appellant
Versus
Raghubir Singh S/o Mangtu – Respondent
RSA No. 118 of 2003
Decided on : 19-12-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership of the suit land, as per land revenue payment, belonged to the general public, and the plaintiffs did not file the suit in representative capacity as required by law. The allotment certificate granted to the defendant was upheld.
Headnote:
POSSESSION - Land Dispute - H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act 1974, Section 10 - The court affirmed the lower court's decision based on the evidence that the suit land was owned by the general public as per land revenue payment and the plaintiffs did not file the suit in representative capacity as required by law. The allotment certificate granted by the Collector in favor of the defendant under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act 1974 was upheld, and the court dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land, claiming it was owned by them and other co-sharers. The defendant asserted ownership based on an allotment certificate under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit land was owned by the general public as per land revenue payment and that the plaintiffs did not file the suit in representative capacity as required by law. The allotment certificate granted to the defendant was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit land was owned by the general public, and the plaintiffs did not file the suit in representative capacity as required by law. The allotment certificate granted to the defendant was upheld.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT :
P.S. RANA, J.
1. Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge–I Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 24-N/2000 titled Jarmej Singh vs. Raghubir Singh whereby learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Court No. II Nurpur District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1995 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Jarmej Singh and others plaintiffs filed suit for possession of suit land comprised in Khata No. 85 Khatauni No. 271 min Khasra No. 19, 20 and 27 measuring 0-31-42 situated in Tikka mauja Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and plaintiffs are co-sharers along with other co-sharers. It is pleaded that present suit has been filed for the benefit of other co-sharers also. It is pleaded that defendant was not inducted as tenant over the suit land at any point of time and defendant has also not any immovable property in the village. It is pleaded that defendant is trespasser over the suit land and plaintiffs have asked the defendant to vacate the suit land but defendant did not vacate the suit land despite request. Prayer for decree of possession as mentioned in relief clause of plaint is sought.
3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit and plaintiffs have also no cause of action against the defendant and plaintiffs have not come to Court with clean hands. It is denied that plaintiffs have any title over the suit property. It is pleaded that suit land was allotted to defendant under the H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Scheme and allotment certificate has been issued by the Collector in favour of the defendant. It is pleaded that possession of suit land was also delivered to the defendant and in alternative defendant has become owner of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought.
4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 12.6.1996:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession over the suit land? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands if so its effect? OPD
8. Whether the suit land has been allotted by the H.P. Government to the defendant as alleged if so its effect? OPD
9. Relief.
5. Findings of learned trial Court on issues Nos. 1 to 6 were in negative and against the plaintiffs and learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 7 and 8 in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellants have filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala and vide Civil Appeal No. 24-N of 2000 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh learned first Appellate Court held that suit
