The court affirmed the validity of oral relinquishment of property and upheld the plaintiffs' ownership rights based on revenue records and Wills, rejecting the defendants' claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

This Regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi on 24.08.2002 in Civil Suit No.3/2002 (95), whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs and the respondents herein were the defendants before learned trial Court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred by the same status as they held in the first Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for the following reliefs:

“8. That the plaintiffs therefore pray for decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of land and buildings comprising Khata Khatauni No.22/59min. Khasra Nos. 134,135,2321/136, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1205/1, 1206, 1207, 1208 and 1209, Kitas 11, measuring 3011-0 sq yards according to the Jamabandi for 1993-94 of Mauja Jogindernagar, Pargana Jitpur, Tehsil Jogindernagar, Distt Mandi, H.P. and are entitled to possession of Kh. No 134 and 135 measuring 2-2 sq yards and 10-6 sq yards of open land and Kh.No. 2321/136 measuring 421.4 sq yards having one shop in the ground floor and 4 rooms in the first floor and one room/residential house in the first floor of Kh. No.1204 measuring 50-5 sq yards and 11 rooms out of the 22 roomed house on Khasra No.1206 measuring 299-3 sq yards, as shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint and a decree for mesne profits of Rs.1 lakh for use and occupation of premises in possession of the defendants belonging to the plaintiff and future mesne profits Rs. 2500/- per month from the date of suit till date of delivery of the premises to the plaintiffs by the defendants and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership of the plaintiffs and their possession on the land and buildings described in para 1 of the plaint. Such other relief be also allowed to the plaintiffs which the court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.”

4. The background facts in nutshell are that one Mangal Dass had two sons named Om Parkash (father of plaintiffs) and Nobat Ram (defendant No.1). Mangal Dass was owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.22/59min. Khasra Nos. 134,135,2321/136, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1205/1, 1206, 1207, 1208 and 1209, Kitas 11, measuring 3011-0 sq yards (for short, ‘the suit land’). He relinquished all his rights qua the suit land in favour of his wife Smt. Chinti Devi. A daily diary report was recorded evidencing such transfer on 28.02.1954 and the mutation was attested on 03.05.1954 and thereafter Smt. Chinti Devi was recorded as owner-in-possession of the suit land.

5. Mangal Dass died in the year 1964.

6. Chinti Devi executed a Will in favour of her son Om Parkash (father of plaintiffs) on 06.09.1973. After the death of Smt. Chinti Devi, the mutation of inheritance with respect to suit property was attested in favour of Om Parkash on 08.06.1976. On the death of Om Parkash, the plaintiffs inherited the suit land and to this effect mutation was attested on 01.05.1982.

7. Plaintiffs filed the suit on 15.09.1995 with the averments that they were the owners-in-possession of entire suit land. As they were minor at the time of death of their father, their uncle defendant No.1 started looking after the suit property and in such process occupied a substantial portion thereof. On attaining the majority, the plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit property and, on their refusal to oblige, the suit was filed.

8. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was averred that Mangal Dass had purchased the suit property from Mahant Hari Gir in 1950. It was admitted that in 1954, the suit property was orally transferred by Mangal Dass to Chinti Devi by way of relinquishment (Tamleek). Chinti Devi executed the Will in favour of Om Parkash in the year 1965, but it was cancelled in the year 1972 for the reason