The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring subordinate courts function within their legal authority and does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence or the interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or suffer from a flagrant abuse of law.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present petition arises out of the order dated 26.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., whereby appeal preferred by the present petitioners/defendants has been dismissed and the order, dated 18.08.2023 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. has been affirmed, whereby an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was partly allowed. Whether approved for reporting?¹1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

__________________________________________________

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ respondents filed a suit for declaration against the defendants/ petitioners. It was averred in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 and 2 and proforma defendants No. 3 to 6 migrated from Pakistan during partition and thereafter, they settled in Nurpur. Thereafter, they jointly purchased land vide sale certificate dated 16-07-1963 u/s 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954) by District Rent and Managing Officer Jalandhar in the sum of ₹ 650/- by adjustment of compensation due upon them in public auction on 13.02.1960 at Jalandhar. The parties were declared purchasers of the property on 16-07-1963. The spot verification was conducted by the authorities and the sale certificate was issued on 31.10.1963 in favour of Thuru Ram, S/o Sh. Dhani Ram for himself and for Banarsi Dass, Om Parkash and Chaman Lal. After the issuance of sale certificate, the possession was delivered to predecessor in interest of the parties jointly and they remained in joint possession of the suit property.

3. As per the claim of the plaintiffs, in the month of February 2023, defendant No. 1 started proclaiming himself to be an absolute owner of the suit property and asked the plaintiffs to remove their articles from the shop in his possession. Plaintiffs started inquiring the revenue record and came to know about the wrong done by the predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs applied for the revenue record and it transpired that the predecessor in interest of the defendants No. 1 and 2 vide order dated 28-03-1987 passed in Missal No. 118/87 has got the entire suit land recorded in their ownership and possession, which is patently illegal and wrong.

4. As per the case of the plaintiff, the change of entries in the revenue record on the basis of order of the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala is without following due procedure and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 3 to 6.

5. It was further averred that the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the month of February, 2023 when defendant No. 1 started proclaiming himself to be an absolute owner of the property. Therefore, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to the extent that revenue entries, as incorporated in the Jamabandies are patently wrong, void ab initio, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the succession rights of the plaintiffs being the successor in interest of the Banarsi Dass to succeed his estate to the extent of 1/4th share, defendants No. 1 and 2 are owners to the extent of 1/4th