Devendra Vigyani vs District Judge, Munsif Tehri and Sri Sohan Singh @ Havaldar Saheb ((since deceased) and Smt. Ram Dei and Others)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.06.1989, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Civil Revision No. 01 of 1988, whereby the order dated 30th of November 1987, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Tehri Garhwal), in Original Suit No. 02 of 1984, is affirmed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Devendra Vigyani instituted Suit No. 02 of 1984 against defendant Sohan Singh (respondent No. 3) u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession of land in suit. It is pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that he was in possession of the land in suit since 1964. On 28th of November 1983, he had to go to Rishikesh in connection with marriage of his daughter. Taking undue advantage the defendant (respondent No. 3) surreptitiously built walls over the land in suit on 10.12.1983, and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff, illegally. With these allegations, restoration of possession was sought u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The defendant / respondent No. 3 contested the suit and filed his written statement. He denied that the plaintiff had possession over the land in suit. The defendant Sohan Singh further pleaded that he was in possession over the land in suit since 1971, after Brahmanand Ashram permitted him to raise kutcha house over it. Thereafter, he made the constructions pucca. The trial court framed two issues, and after recording the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff / petitioner could not prove his case. Aggrieved by said order dated 30th of November 1987, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Tehri Garhwal), Civil Revision No. 01 of 1988 was filed before the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. Said court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court on 26.07.1989. The writ petition is received by transfer to this Court u/s 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is admitted that the petitioner filed the suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and the same was dismissed. It Is further admitted that revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by the revisional court. However, as to the possession of the plaintiff within six months before institution of the suit, the same is denied and it is stated that the plaintiff could not prove his dispossession within six months of filing of the suit.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the possession of the petitioner within six months of filing of the suit is evident from the statement of D.W. 1 Sohan Singh, as such, the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous. I have gone through the copy of the statement of D.W. 1 Sohan Singh, which is annexed as Annexure -8 to the writ petition. There is nothing in his statement on the basis of which it can be said that he admitted the possession of the plaintiff within six months of institution of the suit. Rather, he has stated that he was in possession of the land in suit since 1971, when he raised kutcha house with the permission of the Brahmanand Ashram. From the statement of P.W. 1 Devendra Vigyani and D.W. 1 Sohan Singh, it appears that none of the parties could show their title over the property in suit. There are only oral statements on oath recorded by the trial court in which both the parties have claimed their possession over the land in suit. The plaintiff Devendra Vigyani has stated that he got possession of the land in suit in the year 1964. On the other hand, D.W. 1 Sohan Singh has stated that he got the possession of the land in suit in the year 1971. The plaintiff failed to show that how he got possession of the land in suit. He admitted in his statement that his house is at a distance of two miles from the plot in suit. In what manner he continued his possession (whether by raising construction or by cultivating the land) is not clear. As against this, on behalf of the defendant it was shown that some kutcha constructions were raised over the land in dispute and later on some permanent constructions were also raised on which the plaintiff protested and attempted to demolish the walls raised by the defendant. Two courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff could not prove his case that he was dispossessed within six months before filing of the suit, as such, this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the impugned order, particularly, when it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse.

For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.