RSA No. 587 of 2006. Case: Het Ram and Ors. Vs Partap Singh and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberRSA No. 587 of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate and Jagat Paul, Advocate and For Respondents: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate
JudgesSureshwar Thakur, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateMarch 08, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court


Sureshwar Thakur, J.

  1. Through the instant appeal, the appellants challenge the verdict recorded by the learned first Appellate Court whereby it reversed the verdict recorded by the learned Sub Judge (Nalagarh) whereby, he, on account of lack of jurisdiction to decide the lis embodied in the plaint, returned it, for its presentation before the appropriate Court.

  2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein (for short "the plaintiffs") instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession against the appellants herein (for short "the defendants"). The case of the plaintiffs is that the land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 73/127/69 bearing khasra Nos. 277, 453, 1075, 1518 measuring 12 bighas 18 biswas situated at village Bhatauli Kalan, Had Bast No. 214, pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. was bearing old Khasra Nos. 1460/202 min & 1461/202, 1454/264, 880, 1477/1263 which is the subject matter of the dispute. One Mr. Chaina was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit who had five sons namely Balayati Ram, Bhagat Ram, Samunda, Nihaloo and Hazarro. The plaintiffs are progeny/successors-in-interest of one Shri Nihaloo. The defendants are the progeny/successors-in-interest of Bilayati Ram, Bhagat Ram, Samunda and Hazaroo. Earlier to coming to village Bhatauli Kalan the defendants had come from village Madhala and they have their landed property situated at village Madhala, pargana Doon, Thsil Kasuali, District Solan, H.P. Similarly the plaintiffs have also their landed property at village Bhatauli Kalan and the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants came to an understanding to exchange their lands inter-se and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants proposed that their land situated at village Madhala should be exchanged with the land situated at village Batauli Kalan with Ram Chand and Gian Chand. But this proposal of exchange could not be finalized although an entry in the revenue records came qua this exchange in 1961/1962 but this exchange could not become operative and no mutation of exchange could take place. However arrangements regarding this exchange between the predecessor-in-interest of the parties remained and the defendants entered into permissive possession of the suit land owned by Gian Chand and Ram Chand situated in village Bhatauli Kalan and similarly said Gian Chand and Ram Chand remained in permissive possession of the land of the defendants situated at village Madhala. That the suit land was being acquired by the State Government and notice to this effect was issued and the plaintiffs also came to know about this notification and were eager to get the compensation and when they approached the Land Acquisition Collector, Nalagarh for the purpose of getting compensation, they came to know that the defendants have got this land mutated in their favour vide mutation No. 955 of 30.1.1977 and on the basis of which the defendants have been recorded and shown as owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs have challenged the said mutation sanctioned behind their back arbitrarily without serving notice upon them. They have also challenged the subsequent revenue entries qua the suit land where it is shown in the ownership and possession of the defendants. As such, suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

  3. The suit stands contested by the defendants by filing written-statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction as the proprietary rights of the suit land have been conferred upon the defendants vide mutation No. 955 of 30.1.1977 under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (for short "the Act") and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute inter-se the parties and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit. On merits, they have refuted the allegations delineated in the plaint. The defendants emphatically denied whether any exchange between the parties took place therefore the question that it could not be materialized does not arise. They further alleged that no mutation on the basis of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT