Only a person aggrieved by a decree has the right to appeal, and judicial admissions can disqualify parties from claiming to be aggrieved.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 18-13 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.in Civil Suit No.476/1 of 2005.

2. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, which dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellants (defendants No. 2 to 4) against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had filed a suit seeking adecree for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-18 bighas comprised in khasra No. 266 (old khasra No. 1051/2), khewat No. 6 min, khatoni No. 8, situated in village Ladhyani, Pargna Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., by virtue of an agreement dated 8.6.1964 executed by Sh. Ram Ditta, son of Jai Mal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 5 to 8. It was further pleaded that the revenue entries in the column of ownership and possession contrary to the agreement are illegal, wrong, null, and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed ownership by way of adverse possession since 8.6.1964, the date of execution of the agreement, in case he failed to prove the agreement. Additionally, a decree for permanent injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land.

3. The plaintiff averred that he became the owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of the agreement to sell dated 8.6.1964, executed by Ram Ditta for a total consideration of Rs. 8,450/-, out of which Rs. 7,400/- was paid on the date of execution and the remaining Rs. 750/- was paid later. In consideration of the payment, the seller handed over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. Since then, the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful, open, and hostile possession without any interruption and in the knowledge of the general public as well as defendants No. 5 to 8. The revenue entries contrary to his possession were alleged to be wrong, illegal, and void. It was further pleaded that in case the agreement was not proved, the plaintiff had perfected his title by way of adverse possession since 8.6.1964. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 13.4.2005, when the defendants allegedly threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by defendants No. 5 and 6 by filing a written statement while defendants No. 2 and 4 failed to do so within the stipulated time period,. The plaintiff had moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for striking off the defence of the Defendants for not filing the written statement within the prescribed period qua which the Defendants No.2 and 4 had filed a reply. Notably, para 3 of their reply, duly signed and supported by the affidavit of appellant No. 1 (attested by Sh. L.R. Nadda, Notary Public), explicitly stated

“The answering respondents are the residents of District Hamirpur, H.P. since the year 1989; they have never remained in possession of the suit land. The revenue entries figured in their names are absolutely wrong, illegal, null and void and contrary to the spot.”

5. Defendants No. 2 to 4 also appeared before the court. However, defendants No. 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were later proceeded ex-parte. Before the trial Court evidence was only led by respondent No.1/plaintiff. The evidence so adduced was not cross-examined by the defendant/appellant despite opportunity having been afforded.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants filed a first appeal, contending