Sumna Devi and Others vs Dhanu alias Dhani Ram

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. 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 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.

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.

The replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to sue as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD

Relief.

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.

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.

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 be declared owners in possession of the suit land in the teeth of decree dated 27.8.1987. 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.