IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 11 of 2022 Reserved on: 05.09.2023 Date of Decision: 25.09.2023 Bachno Devi and others ..... Appellant Versus Chandan Verma and others ...Respondents.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate.

For Respondents Nou.1& 2 : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents No.3(a) & 4 : Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocate.

For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Prashant Sen & Ms. Avni Kochhar, Deputy Advocates General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were referred before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land describPed in para 1 of the plaint, the entry showing the suit land as Shamilat Up- Mohal Hasab Rasad Malguzari has become redundant and the entry in favour of defendants no. 1 and 4 is wrong, sale transaction entered in Mutation noo. 812 made by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 is illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. rA consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs was also sought. A relief of declaration that the plaintiffs had become the owner by wa y of adverse possession with the consequential relief of injunction was prayed in the alternative. It was pleaded that the suit land was carved out from previous Khasra No. 767 measuring 4 kanal 2 marla shown in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1966-67. Earlier the suit land was possessed by the Central Government. It was shown in possession of Shankar Nath as Gair Maurusi Awwal and Mehar Ali as Gair Maurusi Doyam. Mehar Ali left for Pakistan after the partition of India. His property was taken by the Government of India as evacuee property. The suit land and other land were sold by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Amritsar to Jasjit Singh as Unit No. BI4S-207/M-343, Dharamshala for ₹ 10,600/-. The compensation payable under the DisplacedP Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was adjusted as the balance consideration. Jasjit Singh sold the suit property and other lands to plaintiffs 1 and 2 father of plaintiffs no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the husband of plaintiffo no. 3 vide sale deed dated 26.10.1964. The name of the plaintiffs was not reflected as purchasers in the revenure record. The name of defendant no.4 was wrongly recorded during the Bandobast Jadid of 1981-1982. Defendant No. 4 had purchased part of Khasra No. 766 and entry in his favour is wrong. Defendant No. 1 was left with no right, title o r interest in the suit land after the sale in favour of Jasjit Singh. However, its name continued in the revenue record. Defendant No. 2 sold 25/41 shares for a consideration of ₹2,000/- on 20.03.1998 to defendant no. 3. The sale was bad;

hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, improper valuation and the plaintiffs being estopped by their acts and conduct to file the present suit. The contents of the plant were denied on merits. It was asserted that the suit is in possession of defendant no. 4 as Gair Maurusi DPoyam. He acquired the proprietary rights aft