Balak Ram and Another vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.

1.This is the Plaintiffs'' appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have assailed the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.

Plaintiffs'' suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction stands dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II, Mandi, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 25.7.2006. Their Civil Appeal No. 106/2006 also stands dismissed by the District Judge, Mandi, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007.

In the Plaintiffs'' suit, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of the alleged Will allegedly executed by deceased Mathru? ..

Whether the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi dated 29.10.1979 is illegal, if so, its effect? ....OPP

Whether the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra dated 22.1.1981 is not legal and null and void as alleged? .....OPP

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? ......OPP

Whether the suit is time barred? .......OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ......OPD

Whether the Plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the present suit? ....OPD

Whether the Plaintiffs has no cause of action to file the present suit? ...OPD

Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? ...OPD

9-A. Whether the proforma Defendant is also entitled to the share in the suit land in case the suit is decreed? ...OPD

Relief.

Both the Courts below have held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the grant under the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land Rules. The grant initially made in favour of the Plaintiffs was subsequently cancelled in terms of order dated 9.7.1976 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The land was resumed by the State vide Mutation No, 505 dated 30.11.1993.

It could not be shown from the record as to how the Plaintiffs were otherwise eligible for the benefits of the Rules and the Scheme framed there under. It is contended that the Plaintiffs have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. The plea to say the least is mutually destructive and dishonest. Plaintiffs had all along challenged the order passed by various authorities on the ground that the cancellation was illegal. From the record, it could not be shown as to how the said cancellation is illegal. Having lost before the two Courts below, a new plea of adverse possession has been raised which needs to be rejected. Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the property belonging to the State. It could not be shown how the impugned judgment and decree is illegal or perverse.

No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.