Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vakil Singh (Through Lrs) & Others vs Bir Singh & Others on 24 October, 2019
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
RSA No. 441 of 2008
Reserved on: 17.10.2019
.
Date of Decision: 24th October, 2019
Vakil Singh (through LRs) & others .....Appellant
Versus
Bir Singh & others ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge:
The instant appeal, stands directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, hence, by both the learned Courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiff's suit, for, rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, and, also for rendition, of, a decree of mandatory injunction, visavis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, hence stood decreed.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -2-2. This Court, on 3.9.2008, had, admitted the appeal, .
instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, the hereinafter extracted, substantial question of law, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:
1. Whether presumption of correctness as attached to the revenue entries exhibit P1, jamabandi for the year 198889, and jamabandi exhibit P2, for the year 199192 stand amply rebutted by virtue of oral as well as documentary evidence on record as produced by appellants/defendants?
Substantial question of Law No.1:
3. Visavis, one Chinti Devi, a conclusive, and, binding verdict, stood hence recorded, by this Court, judgment whereof, stands, embodied, in Ext. P8, (a) and wherethrough, after dismissal, of, the defendants' objections, visavis, the conclusive, and binding judgment, and, decree, pronounced against the defendants, (b) hence, a, pronouncement was made, for issuance, of, warrant(s) of possession, visavis, the suit ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -3- property, and, theirs' being executed, visavis, the afore decree .
holder one Chinti Devi, (c) and, visibly the afore mandate become complied with, and, besides the vendor, of, the plaintiffs, one Chinti Devi, obviously stood delivered, hence, physical possession, of, the suit property, by, the defendants,
(d) thereupon, with the earlier litigation, wherein the afore pronouncement, was recorded, engaging, and, being interse the afore Chinti Devi, and, the defendants herein, (e) and, wherein, a conclusive, and, binding besides completely executed decree, hence, rather of possession, was rendered, vis avis, the afore Chinti Devi, does completely, benumb the defendants espousal, qua, theirs acquiring, through, adverse possession, hence title and interest, visavis, the suit khasra numbers. However, the afore Chinti Devi alone, held, an, indefeasible, vested right, to, through recoursing, the, apposite legal processes, hence seek injunction, against, invalid usumption, visavis, her valid possession, qua, the suit khasra numbers, and, as, purportedly, made, at the instance, of, the ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -4- defendants. Significantly, the, afore locus standi remains .
rather unvested, in, the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs' also claimed qua their acquiring hencetitle, visavis, the suit land, through, mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof, were, respectively attested, on 14.7.1986, in sequel to theirs' acquiring title, through, a sale made in their favour, by the said Chinti Devi, (b) and, also therethrough claimed, a, valid facilitatation, to, institute a suit, seeking therethrough, hence, rendition, of, the espoused decree, visavis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants. Significantly, hence, the validity, of, attestation, of, the afore mutations bearing mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof were attested 14.7.1986, becomes, the, fulcrum wherethrough, an, apt determination would hence ensure, (a) whether the plaintiffs, hold, possession, of, the suit property, (b) whether they are entitled, to, claim rendition, of, the espoused decree against the defendants, and, visavis, the, suit khasra numbers, (c) however, for, the afore attested mutation(s) ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -5- becoming validated by this Court, it, was incumbent, upon, the .
plaintiffs, to, ensure adduction, of, firm evidence, hence meteing satiation, rather with the apposite mandatory statutory provisions, borne both, in, The Transfer of Property Act, and, in, The Registration Act, (d) whereunder(s), visavis, immovable property hence holding, a, value of more than Rs. 100/, a, scribed registered deed of conveyance, is, enjoined to be executed, interse the vendor, r and, the vendee, and, visavis, the suit khasra numbers. However, the execution, of, the requisite mandatory/statutory registered deed of conveyance, interse Chinti Devi, and, the plaintiffs, though, is referred in mutation bearing No. 661, and, also in mutation bearing No. 662, respectively attested, on, 14.7.1986, (d) however, for, the afore reflections cast therein, becoming validated hence by this Court, and, also theirs' becoming concluded to enjoy conclusivity, rather enjoined, the, plaintiffs', to, adduce, the, apposite deed(s), hence into evidence. However, the apt registered deed, of, conveyance executed, purportedly interse, ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -6- the, plaintiffs, and, said Chinti Devi remained unadduced into .
evidence and, when hence, only, thereafter valid title, visavis, the suit khasra numbers, would become vested, in, the plaintiffs, and only, when in pursuance thereof, a, valid mutation would become attested, (f) whereas, the, afore requisite statutorily enjoined registered deed of conveyance, as purportedly executed interse plaintiffs, and, Chinti Devi rather remaining unadduced into evidence, (g) thereupon upon breach, of, the afore requisite mandatory statutory mandate, and, also when hence, for, want thereof, no valid title, is, conveyed, interse the suit khasra numbers, by, Chinti Devi, to, the plaintiffs, (h) thereupon the orders hence attesting mutations, and, theirs' therein unfolding qua the apposite deeds becoming executed, is/are, yet, for non adduction(s) thereof, rather voidabinitio, and, consequently, all, the, apposite entries, and, appertaining, to, the suit khasra numbers also do not any legal vigors.
::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -7-4. Be that as it may, since the reflections, in, the .
records appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, hence, displaying the plaintiffs, to, hold possession, as, owner, of, the suit khasra numbers, become rebutted, (i) and, when the ensuing therefrom inference, is, qua Chinti Devi or her LRs becoming solitary entitled, to, claim ownership, visavis, the suit property, (ii) besides when, with, the previously rendered conclusive, and, binding judgment, and, decree, in, the suit engaging Chinti Devi, and, the defendants, becoming enforceable, only rather by the afore, (iii) and, also with this Court rebutting the defendants' espousal, qua their acquiring title, visavis, suit khasra numbers, hence through adverse possession, (iv) and, with no challenge being cast, visavis, the discountenancing(s), by both the learned courts below, visa vis, the defendants' afore propagation, (iv) hence with even the afore findings becoming conclusive, (v) thereupon Chinti Devi, or, her legal representatives, are, declared to hold possession, visavis, the suit khasra numbers, besides, the concurrent ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP -8- judgments, and, decrees made, visavis, the plaintiffs, .
wherethrough the defendants, are, restrained from interfering the suit khasra numbers, are, quashed and set aside.
5. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion(s), as arrived by the learned Courts below, being not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, evidence, on, record.
accordingly.
r to
The substantial question, of law, is, answered,
6. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, allowed, and, the judgment and decree impugned, before this Court, is, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge 24th October, 2019 (kck) ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2019 20:25:25 :::HCHP