Satya Devi And Others vs Rajesh Kumar And Others on 12 September, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Satya Devi And Others vs Rajesh Kumar And Others on 12 September, 2019

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSAs No. 55 of 2007 and 60 of 2007 .

Reserved on: 2.9.2019 Decided on: 12.9.2019 RSA No. 55 of 2007 Satya Devi and others ...Appellants rVersus Rajesh Kumar and others ...Respondents RSA No. 60 of 2007 Satya Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Rajesh Kumar and others ...Respondents Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________ For the Appellants : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajneesh K. Lall, ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 2 Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge .

The plaintiffs instituted suit(s), for, permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking therethrough(s) hence rendition, of, a decree, vis-à-vis, the defendants, qua theirs being restrained, from, interfering with or alienating, and, changing, the, nature, of, the suit Khasra Nos. The afore espoused relief(s), in the apposite, suits, were, declined, by the learned Civil Judge concerned. In separate appeals, instituted therefrom, hence by the aggrieved plaintiffs, , before the learned first appellate Court concerned, rather both suffered, an alike fate, of, verdicts, of, dismissal, as also made respectively, upon Civil suit Nos. 122/1 of 2003, and, upon civil suit No. 2/1 of 2004. The contesting defendants, in both the afore suits, are the ones, as enumerated, in, the memo of parties, appended with the verdicts, as, stood rendered, by the learned Civil Judge concerned, hence thereon(s).

However, Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar, are, the sons of Paras Ram, and, the latter, is, the 2 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 3 pre-deceased husband, of, the plaintiff, one Satya Devi, and, the afore sons of the plaintiff, were arrayed, as performa respondents/defendants, in Civil Suit No. 122/1 .

of 2003. Since, there is hence commonality, of, interest interse the plaintiff, and, the afore impleaded performa defendants, in the apposite civil suit(s), (i) thereupon, upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, obviously, Satya Devi became the aggrieved therefrom, and also hence the performa defendants concerned, namely, Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and, Vijay Kumar, hence, holding commonality, of, interest with the plaintiff, also became aggrieved, from, the verdict(s), hence dismissing the plaintiffs' suit(s). However, Satya Devi, also independently, instituted civil appeal No. 48 of 2005 and also, hers, alongwith Kuldeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, and, Vijay Kumar, instituted Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2005, challenging therethrough(s), the, verdict(s), of, dismissal, of, the plaintiff one Satya Devi's suit(s), hence by the learned Civil Judge concerned, and, both the afore appeals, were dismissed, and, consequently, in an alike manner, RSAs No. 55 of 2007, and, RSA No. 60 of 2007, 3 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 4 were instituted, before this Court. Since both the appeals involve common questions, of, fact and, of, law, hence both are amenable, for, a common verdict being recorded .

thereon.

Facts of RSA No.60 of 2007

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties is the land comprising of Khata khatoni No. 67/73, Khasra No. 738/562, measuring 15.9 bighas, Khata Khatauni No 55/60, Khasra No. 809/559, measuring 7.16 bighas Khata khatoni No. 70/76 to 78 kitas 7,measuring 9.9 bighas, Khata khatoni No. 73/89, Khasra No. 407, measuring 5.18 bighas and Khata khatoni No. 71/79 to 87, kitas 11,measuring 23.5 bighas, situated in village Nalag, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, vide copy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bilaspur, for seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants No. 1 to 6 from interfering, transferring, alienating and changing the nature of the suit land 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 5 touching the best portion, situated on the road side and also from dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants from their respective share till the land is .

partitioned, and in the alternative for possession if the contesting defendants succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land and that if the contesting defendants succeeded in alienating any part of the suit land exceeding to their share then the same may be declared null and void and the possession thereof be restored to the plaintiff and proforma defendants, in its original nature. It was averred that the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land alongwith the defendants and proforma defendants and that the defendants have limited share in the suit land.

The defendants are resourceful persons and are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the best part of the suit land. It is further averred that the defendants were requested not to interfere and alienate the part of the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff, but the defendants are threatening to sell the best part of the suit land and 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 6 dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants abutting the road side and the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering, raising .

construction, changing the nature and dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendants till the land is finally partitioned proceedings of which are pending before the A.C. 1st Grade, Bilaspur. It is also averred that the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land which is in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants were called upon not to cause any interference and dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land, but they are adamant and did not accede the request of the plaintiff, but on their refusal and failure to do so, the present suit came to be filed before the trial Court.

3. The suit was contested and resisted by the contesting defendants No. 1 to 6 by filing joint written statement. It is denied that the parties are in joint possession of the suit land. It is also denied that the defendants have very little share in the suit land.

However, it is pleaded that the defendants are in 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 7 possession of the land which was developed by them. It is denied that the defendants have ever threatened the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has nothing to .

do with the land exclusively possessed by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff has no legal right to restrain the defendants from aliening the land which is in their possession and they have the legal right to alienate the suit land to the extent of their share. It is also pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the land as per the family arrangement and that cannot be disturbed since the defendants have spent huge amount on the development of the land. The defendants have denied that they are threatening to raise construction since the possession are separate and the partition proceedings has been terminated which order was never challenged by the plaintiff and have become final. The plaintiff filed the replication whereby she has re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments made in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement.

7 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 8

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 13.5.2004:

.

(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction of the suit land, as prayed? OPP

(ii). Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession in case the plaintiff is forcibly dispossessed from the land in her possession as alleged?

OPP

(iii) Whether the parties are coming in separate possession of the land on the basis of family arrangement, as alleged? OPD

(iv). Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties, as alleged? OPD

(v). Relief.

5. The plaintiff filed civil suits, bearing No. 122/1 of 2003, against, the defendants in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bilaspur, for therethrough hence seeking a decree, for, permanent prohibitory injunction, for restraining the defendants, from, changing 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 9 the nature of the suit land, till the suit land is validly partitioned. It is averred, that, the plaintiffs are joint owner in possession, of, the suit property.

6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed, the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also dismissed the apposite appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment, and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon civil suit No. 122/1 of 2003 and, when the RSA No. 60 of 2007, came up, for admission, this Court, on 13.7.2007, admitted the appeal instituted by the appellant(s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question(s) of law:-

(i). Whether both the Courts have misconstrued and misapplied the relevant provisions of Evidence Act by unnecessarily drawing adverse inference against the 9 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 10 plaintiff is not stepping into the witness box? Have not both the Courts below rendered erroneous findings by ignoring the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard?

(ii). Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in holding that partition between the parties has taken place without setting aside the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.3 and without assigning any cogent reason in disagreeing with such finding of the trial Court? Has not the lower appellate Court acted in perverse and erroneous manner in misconstruing the relevant provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act?

(iii) Whether the trial Court has committed grave illegality and irregularity in failing to rely upon the revenue record, correctness of which was not disputed by the defendants? Are not the findings returned by the learned trial Court that the property has not been property identified, arbitrary and erroneous, when the defendants respondents did not dispute the identity of the suit land?

(iv). Whether the trial Court has acted in erroneous and perverse manner in refusing the relief of injunction when it rendered the findings that the claim of the defendant to be in separate possession on account of family arrangement is not sustainable? Has not the trial Court mis-appreciated and misapplied the relevant 10 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 11 provisions of Specific Relief Act by declining the relief of injunction without determining the status of respective parties over the suit land?

Facts of RSA No.55 of 2007

8 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties is the land measuring 9.1 Bighas, comprising of Khata Khatoni No. 72/88 Khasra No.408, situated in village Nalag, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. vide copy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, for seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, transferring alienating, mortgaging and changing the nature of the suit land till the land is partitioned as per the law. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs alongwith the defendants are co-sharers of the suit land to the extent of their share and the partition proceedings are pending before the Revenue Officer. It is further averred that the defendants are bent upon to change the nature of the suit land and are intending to transfer their 11 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 12 share of the suit land to different persons with a view to create trouble for the plaintiffs and also threatened to make construction on the valuable portion of the suit .

land. It is averred that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit land by way of family partition. The suit was contested and resisted by the defendants by filing written statements. It is pleaded that the possession of the parties on the suit land has been coming on the spot separately on the basis of the family partition, which is alleged to have been taken place between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties since long. It is further pleaded that subsequent partition proceedings were terminated by the competent Court and these have become final. Since the defendants are stated to be possession of their share on the basis of the family arrangement, as such they have every right to transfer any piece of land which is in their possession. The defendants have pleaded that nothing has happened on 6.12004, as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed the replications whereby they have re-affirmed and re-

12 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 13

asserted the averments made in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement.

9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following .

issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 13.5.2004.

(i). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP

(ii). Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

(iii). Whether the land has been put in the possession of the parties by way of family partition, as alleged? OPD

(iv). Relief.

10. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed, the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also dismissed the apposite appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

11. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this 13 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 14 Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment, and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal, came up, for .

admission, this Court, on 13.7.2007, admitted the appeal instituted by the appellant(s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question(s) of law:-

(i). Whether both the Courts have misconstrued and misapplied the relevant provisions of Evidence Act by unnecessarily drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff is not stepping into the witness box? Have not both the Courts below rendered erroneous findings by ignoring the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard?

(ii). Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in holding that partition between the parties has taken place without setting aside the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.3 and without assigning any cogent reason in disagreeing with such finding of the trial Court? Has not the lower appellate Court acted in perverse and erroneous manner in misconstruing the relevant provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act?

14 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 15

(iii). Whether the trial Court has committed grave illegality and irregularity in failing to rely upon the revenue record, correctness of which was not disputed by the defendants? Are not the findings returned by the learned .

trial Court that the property has not been property identified, arbitrary and erroneous, when the defendants respondents did not dispute the identity of the suit land?

(iv). Whether the trial Court has acted in erroneous and perverse manner in refusing the relief of injunction when it rendered the findings that the claim of the defendant to be in separate possession on account of family arrangement is not sustainable? Has not the trial Court mis-appreciated and misapplied the relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act by declining the relief of injunction without determining the status of respective parties over the suit land?

12. Since both the appeals, involve common questions of law and facts, thereupon both the appeals are amenable for a common verdict, being recorded thereon.

Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 4

13. The copy of jamabandi(es) appertaining, to, the suit property, are, respectively borne in Ext.PW1/A, in Ext. PW1/B, in Ext. PW1/C, in Ext. PW1/D, and, in 15 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 16 Ext.PW1/D, and all make candid forthright bespeaking(s), vis-à-vis, the suit property, being reflected to be, in the co-ownership, of, the appositely recorded co-owners .

concerned. The afore reflections, cast, in the Jamabandi(s), appertaining, to, the suit Khasra No., obviously enjoy a presumption of truth, (a) and, unless the afore presumption is rebutted, by, adduction of cogent evidence, (b) thereupon the afore presumption, gathers an aura, of, conclusivity. Hence, sequel thereof, (c) is, qua, till the occurrence, of, a valid dismemberment, of, the joint suit property rather by metes and bounds, (d) rather, thereupto none of the recorded co-owners, holding any leverage, to usurp hence any portion of the recorded undivided suit property, vis-à-vis, their exclusive user, (e) unless evident consent, is, meted, for the afore purpose, by the other co-owners concerned. However, the other exception appertaining, the afore trite rubric, hence ingraining the jurisprudential concept, of, co-ownership,

(f) qua, uptill, emergence, of, a valid dismemberment, of, the joint estate, hence through metes and bounds, rather thereupto, excepting, with the consent of the co-owners 16 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 17 concerned, no co-owner, being entitled, to, usurp any portion, of, the joint suit property, vis-à-vis, his-their exclusive user, as, thereupon, the principle inhering, the, .

jurisprudential concept, of co-ownership, inasmuch as each co-owner, holding unity of title, and, community of possession, becoming, the, inapt causality, is, comprised in (g) if the co-owner concerned, has utilized, a valuable portion, of, the suit property, hence his/their(s) being barred/precluded, to, restrain, the, striving co-owners concerned, for, the latter making, a, compatible effort, However, none of the afore exceptions, governing, the jurisprudential concept of co-ownership, is, either pleaded nor evidence, in consonance therewith rather stands adduced, on record.

14. In aftermath, the reflection(s), as carried, in the entries, vis-à-vis, the suit property, and unveiling, qua it being recorded, as joint interse the contesting litigants, thereupon they enjoy an aura, of, conclusivity, and, hence the decree, espoused, by the plaintiff, was grantable, vis-

à-vis, her, and also vis-à-vis, her sons, impleaded as performa defendants, in Civil Suit No. 122/1 of 2003.

17 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 18

15. Be that as it may, both the learned Courts below, rather proceeded to decline hence relief, to the afore, (a) on anvil, of, an order made, on 2.6.1990, by the Revenue .

Officer concerned, certified copy whereof, is, on record, and, is borne in Ext. D-1, and along therewith is, appended the statement, of, Paras Ram, the predecessor-

in-interest, of, the appellants, and, the father of the afore proforma defendants, (b) and, apt cumulative reading thereof, unfolds qua therethrough rather the predecessor-

in-interest of the plaintiff, withdrawing his statutory application, seeking partition, of, the joint land, application whereof, is, comprised, in, Ext. D-5, (c) rather on the stated ground(s), of, a family partition, occurring interse him, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of the contesting defendants. Furthermore, on anvil, of the afore exhibits, both the learned Courts below, drew, a conclusion, qua the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiff, acquiescing, to, occurrence, of, a valid dismemberment, of, the joint estate, interse him, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the contesting defendants, (d) and also proceeded to draw a further conclusion, that, 18 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 19 hence the presumption of truth, carried by the afore reflections, as borne in the revenue records, rather unfolding qua, the suit property, being joint amongst the .

plaintiffs, and, the contesting defendants, rather coming to be rebutted (e) and, thereafter, proceeded to conclude, that, the contesting defendants, in pursuance(s) thereof, validly holding exclusive possession, of, contentious parcels of land, and, also, the reflections, if any, in concurrence therewith, occurring in the revenue records, not attracting, the trite canon, hence underlying, the, jurisprudential concept, of, the co-ownership, qua till occurrence, of, a valid dismemberment of the joint estate, hence thereupto each co-owner, enjoying unity of title, and, community, of, possession, vis-à-vis, others, and, also drew, a, conclusion, that hence the plaintiff(s) were not, entitled to the espoused decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction.

16. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereafter, the afore drawn conclusions, are, lacking in legal vigor, (a) given though Ext, D-5, being a statutory application, cast before the Revenue Officer concerned, hence seeking 19 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 20 through the aegis, of, the relevant agency concerned, hence, dismemberment, of, the joint estate, (b) and though, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, as .

unfolded, by Ext.D-1, withdrew hence the afore application, on anvil, qua a family partition, or a takseem khangi, occurring interse them, (c) and, even though the order borne in Ext.D-5, may be, inferable, to be an order, made within the ambit, of, Section 135 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:

"135: Affirmation of partition privately affected- (I) in any case in which a partition bas been made without the intervention of a Revenue Officer, any party thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the partition. (2) On receiving the application, the Revenue Officer shall inquire into the case, and if he finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make an order affirming it and proceed under Section 131, 132, 133 and 134, or any of those sections, as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on an application to himself under this Chapter" .

20 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 21

(c) and may be construable, to be affirming, the, apt takseem Khangi, or a family partition entered into, interse, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and, .

the predecessor-in-interest, of, the contesting defendants,

(d) nonetheless, any making, of, the, afore conclusion, would not perse beget hence a conclusion, qua the afore order, also coming to be implemented, comprised in (e) mutation(s) in concurrence therewith, being attested, by the revenue officer concerned, f) physical possession, of, dismembered tracts of land, being handed over, to each, of, the co-owners concerned. The afore imperative necessity, of, subsequent to the making of Ext. D-1, hence delivery, of, physical possession, of, the dismembered tracts of land, being peremptorily handed over, to each, of the co-owners concerned, for hence, the, completest, and, efficacious dismemberment(s), hence occurring, hence arises, from, a statutory injunction cast, in Section 134 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter:

"134. Delivery of possession of property allotted on partition- An owner of tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy, as the 21 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 22 case may be, is allotted in proceedings for partition shall be entitled to possession thereof, as against the other parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives, and a Revenue .

Officer shall, on application made to him for the purpose by any such owner or tenant at any time within three years from the date recorded in the instrument of partition under the last forgoing section, give effect to that instrument so as it concerns the applicant as if it were a decree from immovable property."

(i) and when the mandate thereof is applicable, vis-à-vis, the proceedings, for, partition hence drawn, before, the revenue office concerned, and when Ext. D-1, is, construable, to, be a proceeding, drawn, under Section 135 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, (ii) thereupon, with a statutory edict, standing cast therein, vis-à-vis, the entitlement(s), of, the co-owners concerned, to receive, physical possession, of, apt the dismembered tracts, of, land, as, comprised in, Ext. D-1, (g) through theirs/his casting hence an application, for, the afore purpose rather before the Revenue Authority concerned, rather, within three years, from the recording of Ext.D-1, and, (h) also thereafter, compatible therewith reflections, being 22 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 23 cast, in the revenue record(s) concerned, (i) whereas evidently, with, all the afore mechanism(s), remaining neither recoursed nor apposite mutation(s), in, .

consequence to the making, of, Ext. D-5, standing recorded, hence by the Revenue Officer concerned, nor also, in compatibility with Ext. D-1, the requisite corrections, being made, in the Revenue record concerned, (j) thereupon any reliance, upon, Ext. D-1, by both the learned Courts below, to perse, on its anvil, hence conclude qua being a completest valid dismemberment, of, the recorded joint estate, amongst the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and, of the contesting defendants, is, perse grossly fallacious, and hence, the afore findings, are, reversed.

17. Be that as it may, merely for non-stepping, into witness box, of the plaintiff, one Satya Devi, both the learned Courts below had concluded , qua hers, not proving the averments, cast in the plaint, however, the afore assigned reason(s), are, flimsy and pretextual, (a) as her son, who stood arrayed as co-defendant No. 8, namely Kuldeep Kumar, rather stepped into the witness 23 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 24 box, and, during the course, of his, rendering his testification, in his examination-in-chief, he has made testification(s) rather supporting the averments, cast in .

the plaint, , b) also when the learned Court(s), dehors, even the plaintiffs' omitting, to, step into the witness box, and, also dehors Kuldeep Kumar, being not the befitting person, to, prove the averment(s) , cast in the plaint, rather, mis-conceived qua the sub-stratum, of, the lis, being squarely rested, upon, an appraisal, of, the compatible therewith, hence imports, of, the exhibits, embodying therein the jamabandi(es), appertaining to the suit property, and, also the apposite therewith efficacy, of, Ext. D-1, and Ext.D-5 (i) and, when all the afore requisite appraisals, are, not evidently made by each, (ii) hence thereupon also, it was not befitting, for both the learned Courts below, to insist, for, the plaintiff Satya Devi, hence stepping into the witness box, for proving the averments, cast in the plaint. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

18. In view of this, there is merit in both the appeals, and, the same are allowed, and, the impugned 24 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP 25 judgment(s)and decree(s), passed by both the learned courts below, upon Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2005 and upon Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005, are quashed and set aside.

Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.






                                    (Sureshwar Thakur)
    12.9.2019                              Judge
    Kalpana


                       r      to









                                                                          25


                                       ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 04:17:55 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court