Meena Kumari vs Het Ram and another

Rajiv Sharma, Judge

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 6-S/13 of 2011.

Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs" for convenience sake) had instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ''the defendant'' for brevity sake) stating therein that they were co-owners in possession of land described in Khata Khatauni No. 41/118, Khasra No. 15, measuring 0-30-04 hectares, as per Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004. The defendant has purchased a share in the land described in Khata Khatauni No. 41/118, vide registered sale deed No. 204 on 16.02.2009. The defendant and also her predecessor-in-title had not been in possession of the suit land. The defendant wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land. She started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs from March, 2009.

The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement. The defendant had admitted the plaintiffs as co-owners of the suit land. However, according to her, the plaintiffs were not in possession. She has purchased a share in the suit land vide registered sale deed No. 204, dated 16.02.2009. She had claimed possession of the suit land. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shimla framed the issues on 03.09.2009. He decreed the suit on 3rd December, 2010. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The same was dismissed on 02.09.2011. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed the oral as well as documentary evidence. He then argued that the suit land was grass land.

I have heard Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant at length.

Plaintiff has appeared as PW-3. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land as co-owner. The defendant and also her predecessor-in-title were not in possession. He has proved the Jamabandi Ex. PW-3/A for the year 2003-04. PW-1 Sunita Verma and PW-2 Leela Sandel had produced the record.

Shri Chandu Lal has appeared as DW-1. He was husband and General Power of Attorney of the defendant. According to him, his wife and her brother Mast Ram had purchased the suit land through registered sale deed. According to him, the plaintiffs were not in possession. DW-2 Tulsi Ram has supported the possession of the defendant over the suit land. DW-3 Shashi Ram has deposed that Mast Ram has reported against the plaintiffs vide report No. 4, dated 04.12.2008.

PW-3 Het Ram has testified that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, to the exclusion of all others. The defendant and her brother had purchased a share in Khata Khatauni No. 41/118, however, she was not in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs had been recorded in possession of the suit land as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, Ex. PW-3/A. Earlier, the plaintiffs have also filed a suit, titled Pritam Singh versus Mast Ram, bearing Civil Suit No. 29/1 of 2003 against Mast Ram, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff on 07.07.2006. Mast Ram was restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs'' possession. One of the witnesses Chandu Lal has deposed that plaintiff, namely, Pritam Singh had instituted a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against Mast Ram, however, DW-1 Chandu Lal had expressed ignorance to the decision of the suit filed against Mast Ram. In fact, the defendant and Mast Ram had purchased a share in the suit land vide sale deed No. 204, dated 16.02.2009 from Khata Khatauni No. 41/118. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the plaintiffs have been proved in possession of the suit land. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.