Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, HP (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner-in-possession of the suit land described in the head note of the plaint by virtue of the Will executed by Molam in their favour and the order dated 4.5.1987, passed by Collector as affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.6.1988 and mutation No. 226 dated 24.8.1989 are illegal, null and void which do not affect the rights of the parties. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was also sought. A relief in the alternative for possession was claimed in case the defendants succeed in taking possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It was asserted that the suit land was allotted to Molam. He executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.10.1981 in lieu of the services rendered by them to him. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 24.8.1986. An appeal was preferred, which was allowed on 4.5.1987. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 28.6.1988. The defendants started interference with the possession of the plaintiff based on the mutation; hence, a suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the suit being barred by limitation, lack of cause of action and jurisdiction, Molam not being competent to bequeath the land granted to him under the Nautor Scheme, 1975, Molam having violated the conditions of the grant made in his favour, the suit having not been properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and no legal and valid notice having been served upon the defendants. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the suit land was allotted to Molam as a Nautor land. It was admitted that a Will dated 22.10.1981 was produced by the plaintiff before learned AC 2nd Grade for mutation on 11.4.1984. The defendants objected to the mutation but learned AC 2nd Grade sanctioned the mutation. This order was set aside by the Sub Divisional Collector, Chamba, HP. The order of the Sub Divisional Collector was upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The suit land could not have been transferred to any person for a period of 15 years from the date of allotment. Molam had failed to break up the land within the period of two years from the date of taking over the possession of the land. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Collector and the Divisional Commissioner; hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A separate written statement was filed by defendants No. 3, 4, 10, 13 to 16 and 19 to 21, taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of cause of action and the suit being barred by limitation. It was admitted on merits that the suit land was allotted to Molam as Nautor. It was asserted that the suit land was allotted to Molam with the active connivance of the plaintiff, who wanted the Nautor for himself, but his application and appeal were dismissed. The mutation was challenged by the defendants and was set aside by the learned Collector, whose decision was upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner. The defendants are in possession of the suit land as Bartandaran, havin