Prahma Ram and Others vs Khajana Ram

Sanjay Karol, J—Plaintiffs-appellants Brahma Ram and Bishnu Ram have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2015, passed by Additional District Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala, in RBT Civil Appeal No. 13-B/XIII/13/08, titled as Brahma Ram and another v. Khazana Ram, whereby judgment and decree dated 30.4.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 121/2006, titled as Brahma Ram and another v. Bishnu Ram, stands affirmed.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by them with defendant-respondent Khazana Ram, in equal shares, and the entries to the contrary are wrong, null and void, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering and dispossessing them from the suit land. It is contended by the plaintiffs that one Shri Paharu Ram (father of the defendant and grandfather of the plaintiffs) was a tenant over the suit land and he cultivated the same till his death and thereafter his sons Khinu (father of the plaintiffs) and defendant cultivated the same and now the plaintiffs and defendant have become owners in equal shares.

Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections were taken, and on merits, defendant averred that he is owner of the suit land and is coming in possession thereof for the last so many years. He is having his house on the suit land. He has also averred that in a family arrangement, the suit land was given to him. He has denied that the plaintiffs ever cultivated the suit land.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration as plaintiffs are owner in possession in equal share with the defendant in the suit land? OPP

Whether the revenue entries of the name of defendant showing him the absolute owner in possession are illegal, null and void? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs are Legal Representatives of deceased Pahru Ram and inherited the tenancy of their grandfather prior to the settlement? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs become the owner to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land after the death of Khinu Ram (father of the plaintiffs)? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

Whether the suit land was given to the defendant by Shri Pahru Ram in a family arrangement and settlement? OPD

Whether the defendant has purchased the suit land from the owners on 23.3.1971? OPD

Whether the defendant is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land since the year 1971? OPD

Whether the sale deed of ownership of land executed in favour of defendant is illegal, null and void? OPP

Relief."

Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. Findings of fact, judgment and decree, so passed by the trial Court, stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

Primarily, the Court was called upon to decide the title and possession of the parties over the suit land. Plaintiffs want the Court to believe that they are owner in possession to the extent of half share of the suit land and entries to the contrary, recording the defendant as owner in possession, are wrong, null and void. Courts below, and rightly so, based on the earlier proceedings (Civil Suit No. 108/2001, titled as Khazana Ram v. Brahma Nand & Bishnu Ram, decided on 14.3.2003), have held the defendant to be owner in possession over the suit land. Significantly, in the earlier proceedings, plaintiffs admitted execution of family arrangement, whereby defendant, was put into exclusive possession, who subsequently acquired title by purchasing the land. Entries of title and possession continued to be reflected in the name of the defendant over a continuous period of time.

All litigations, at some stage, must come to an end. In view of the plaintiffs'' admission of the suit land having been given by Paharu Ram to the defendant, no ground for interference is made out.

As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.