In this second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and possession of land, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the suit was barred by time due to unrebutted revenue entries and need not decide the title or adverse possession matter as it was not the core dispute.
Second appeal and cross-objections dismissed; suit remains barred by time.
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 AT SHIMLA
RSA No. 340 of 2005 with Cross Objection No. 536 of 2005
Reserved on: 18.11.2019 Decided on: 12.12.2019
| ___________________________________________________________ Kalan Devi …..Appellant Versus Munshi Ram ……Respondent |
|---|
| _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. |
| 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. |
| For the appellant : Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, |
| For the respondent : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate. |
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge
The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 21.03.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 210/13 of 2004/1999, whereby the judgment and
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
decree, dated 26.04.1999, passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. was affirmed, wherein suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
3
land and forcibly occupied the land about 5-6 years back, as such, the entries in favour of the defendant in the revenue record are wrong and illegal.
4
2. Whether the revenue entry qua the suit land in favour of the defendant is wrong and illegal? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainabe? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit due to her acts and conduct? OPD
8. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD
9. Relief.”
5
plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff maintained an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was also dismissed and the judgment and decree of learned trial Court was affirmed. Hence, the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether the first Appellate Court has fallen in error and has committed a serious illegality in holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner of the suit land and at the same time holding that the respondent too has not acquired title by prescription?
6
land by way of adverse possession and the learned Court below has not decided the question of title. She has argued that though the plea of adverse possession of the defendant has been dismissed, however, the suit which was required to be decreed, was not decreed.
7
8
Saju in his presence, which was scribed by petition writer in his presence. He further deposed that Gift Deed was firstly read over and explained to late Saju and then she had signed the same in his presence.
9
as such, she was owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Further, Saju had gifted her entire estate including the suit land in favour of the defendant, vide registered Gift Deed, Ext. DW-2/A, thus, he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.
10
and Munshi Ram is tenant in possession in lieu of rendering personal services. In copy of Jamabandi for the year 1961-62, Ext. DB, Bihari Lal is recorded as owner and Saju is recorded in column of possession as “Gair Moursi” and entries in column No. 9 are that Saju is owner of the land without paying rent. In copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period from Kharif 1977 to Rabi 1982, Ext. DD, Bihari Lal is recorded owner of the suit land and Saju as “Gair Moursi” as owner and at the time of recording Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1980, entries were made that Munshi Ram was inducted tenant by Saju in lieu of rendering personal services.
11
12
being a tenant and substantial question of law No. 2 is answered accordingly.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
December 12, 2019
(raman)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether theSuit is barred by time given the existence of unrebutted revenue entries in favour of the defendant?
Whether the first Appellate Court committed illegality in holding the plaintiff not the owner and the respondent did not acquire title by prescription?
Kalan Devi
Munshi Ram
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
