This appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for declaration of ownership. The court held that since the respondent already possessed the land based on a final decree that was never assailed, the appellants could not be declared owners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 33 of 2013-F Date of decision: 21.5.2013
Sumna Devi and others …..Appellants. Vs.
Dhanu alias Dhani Ram ….Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the appellants : Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Advocate
Kuldip Singh, J
This appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 5.9.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 177-B/XIII/2010 affirming judgment, decree dated 23.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Baijnath, in Civil Suit No. 11/2010 dismissing the suit of the appellants.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 649, 1022 total land measuring 0-26-64 hectares, situated at Mohal Kasba Paprola, Mouza Paprola, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 as per order dated 29.3.1986 of Land Records Officer, Baijnath. The further case of the appellants is that they are successors of their father late Duni
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes
…2…
Chand, who died in the year 1984. Duni Chand moved an application for resumption of land on 29.11.1975 and case was finally decided by the Land Records Officer on 29.3.1986 holding that Duni Chand was owner in possession of the suit land. The suit land was transferred in favour of respondent vide Mutation No. 766 on the basis of decree dated 27.8.1987 passed by learned Civil Judge, Palampur in case No. 275 of 1986. According to the appellants, they have less land as per H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder, therefore, as owners they have right to resume one and half acre of land for their personal cultivation. On these facts, the appellants have filed the suit that they may be declared as owners in possession of the suit land.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent. He has taken several objections. It has been submitted that wrong and manipulated entry in favour of deceased Duni Chand was set right by the Civil Court as per decree dated 27.8.1987 which was affirmed even by the High Court. In pursuance of earlier decree, the possession was delivered to the respondent. The respondent has come in possession of the suit land by due process of law.
4. The replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
…3…
The issues No. 2 to 6 were answered in affirmative, issue No.1 in negative and the suit was dismissed by learned trial Court on 23.10.2010. The first Appellate Court on 5.9.2012 affirmed the decree dated 23.10.2010.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The appellants have filed the suit by taking the plea that they have right to resume the land from the tenant to the extent of one and half acre for their personal cultivation. The suit land at one point of time was found in possession of their father by the Land Records Officer on 29.3.1986. The case projected by the appellants is totally misconceived. It has not been denied by learned counsel for the appellants that in case No. 275 of 1986 the Court at Palampur decreed the suit in favour of the respondent and decree was upheld upto the High Court. In pursuance of the decree dated 27.8.1987 the respondent came in possession of the suit land. The decree dated 27.8.1987 attained finality.
6. The decree dated 27.8.1987 has not been assailed on any available ground in the present litigation by the appellants. Once it has been found that respondent has come in possession of the suit land by following due process of law, therefore, the appellants cannot
…4…
be declared owners in possession of the suit land in the teeth of decree dated 27.8.1987.
7. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal, hence dismissed. The pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
May 21, 2013 (GR)
( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appellants are entitled to be declared owners in possession of the suit land in contravention of the final decree dated 27.8.1987 in favour of the respondent.
Sumna Devi and others
Dhanu alias Dhani Ram
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
