IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 56 of 2004 Reserved on : 29.08.2023 Date of Decision: 28^th September, 2023.

Smt. Sushil Kumari & others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Kaushalya Devi & others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sood, h Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 to 9.

None for respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 6.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned District Judge, ________________

Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgments? Yes Una,H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court)was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that tfhe plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 38, Khatauni No. 65, Khasra No. 3028 measuring 0-01-36, situated in Village Nichla Kotla, Tehsil & District Una, H.P.as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The judgment and decree dated 12.03.1987 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge/Conciliation Judge in Civil Suit No. 34/87 is null, void and having no binding effect on the rights, title or interest of the plaintiff and defendants no. 3 to 12, and the mutation no. 3019 dated 29.07.1987 passed on the basis of judgment and decree aforesaid are wrong and illegal. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and defendants no. 3 to 12 was also sought. A relief for possession was prayed in case defendants no. 1 and 2 succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiffs and defendants no. 3 to 12 from the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

3. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs purchased 0-7 marlas of land being 7/12 shares out of the land measuring 0-12 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 38, Khatauni No. 52, bearing .Khasra Nos. 4701/1276, 3639/1277 and 3637/1275 from defendants no. 3 to 11 vide registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1981. A mutation no. 2639 dated 07.07.1983 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. The Khasra, Khewat and Khatauni numbers of the land purchased by the plaintiffs were changedr during the consolidation and new Khewat No. 34 min, Khatauni No. 56 min, Khasra No. 1560, 1564 and 1568 were assigned to the old khasra numbers. Again the Khatauni, Khewat and Khasra numbers were changed during the settleme nt. New Khasra number 3028, Khewat No. 33 and Khatauni No. 68 were assigned to the suit land. The suit land is valuable and located on the Una-Hamirpur road. Defendants No.1 Hand 2 persuaded defendants no. 3 to 11 to sell their share in the suit land in their favour (defendants No.1 and 2). However, it was found that defendants no. 3 to 11 were unable to execute the Sale Deed due to some legal complications. Defendants no. 1 and 2 along with defendants no. 3 to 11 filed a collusive Suit No. 34/87. The plaintiffs were not arrayed as parties. Defendant No. 2 is suffering from a mental disorder and is confined to a mental hospital. She was unable to engage any lawyer. However, a Power of Attorney was filed on her behalf. A collusive decree was obtained declaring defendant no.1 as the owner. A m.utation was also sanctioned based on judgment and decree. The plaintiffs came to know about the judgment and decree when they received a summons from the Court of Tehsildar Settlement dated 16.07.1990 regarding the attestation of the mutation. Plaintiffs asked the defendant no.1 tor acknowledge their title but in vain;

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

4. The suit was opposed by defendan