Bhagat
(D) by LRS Vs. Sher Singh (D) by LRS [2008] INSC 596 (8 April 2008)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1304 OF 2002 P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated
12.08.1999 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.S.A. No. 267 of
1993 whereby the High Court modified the decree and judgment dated 1.05.1993
passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.
2) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
under:
The dispute between the parties is in respect of land comprising of Khasra
Nos. 404, 415 and 465 measuring 1.10.73 Hectares in Mohal and Mauza Bhatehad,
Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. On 19.7.1990, the original plaintiff,
predecessors of respondents herein filed a suit for declaration that the
entries with regard to Khasra Nos. 404, 415 and 465 made in the revenue record
are not correct as wrongly shown the defendants/appellants herein in the column
of owners and prayed for possession in alternative.
The defendants/appellants filed written statement and opposed the suit on
the ground that civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any question with
regard to conferment of proprietary right in respect of the land in dispute, that
the suit is barred by limitation, and that the defendants are in possession for
the last 60-70 years and earlier his predecessor-in-interest were in possession
of the suit land. By judgment and decree dated 29.02.1992, the suit was
dismissed being barred by limitation. Challenging the same, the
plaintiff/respondents filed C.A. No.61 of 1992 on the file of the District
Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. The District Judge, by order dated 01.05.1993,
dismissed the appeal with some modification passed by the trial Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed R.S.A. No.
267 of 1993 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court by the
impugned order partly allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiffs are in
possession in part of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 415 and 465 and dismissed
the appeal as well as the suit so far as Khasra No. 404 is concerned. Against
the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave.
3) Heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.
Himinder Lal, learned counsel for the respondents.
4) The subject-matter of the dispute relates to Khasra Nos.
404, 415 and 465. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, more
specifically revenue records produced before the trial Court, it has come to
the conclusion that Khasra No.
404 has been in possession of the original defendant and Khasra Nos. 415 and
465 have been in possession of the original plaintiff. The High Court, based on
the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court, that the original plaintiff
was not in possession of Khasra No. 404 and had no knowledge about the revenue
entries, dismissed his suit insofar as Khasra No.
404 is concerned. On the other hand, the other two Khasra Nos. 415 and 465
are concerned, the High Court after noting that the original plaintiff has been
in possession and cause of action accrued to him when the original defendant
extended threat of dispossession, which is within the limitation, allowed the
second appeal in part. Inasmuch as the High Court arrived at such a conclusion
based on the factual finding of the trial Court which, in turn, relied on the
oral and documentary evidence as well as entries in the revenue records, which
being the position, in the absence of any other material, we do not find any
justifiable ground to interfere with the conclusion of the High Court.
5) In the light of the above conclusion, the appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
