Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 924 (HP)

PAT RAM v. Sewati

2013-11-01

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. PLAINTIFF, Pat Ram (appellant herein), who was plaintiff in his suit and defendant in the suit filed by defendant No.1, Smt. Sewati (respondent No.1 herein) has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.107 -S/13 of 2012, titled as Pat Ram versus Smt. Sewati and another, whereby judgments and decrees dated 31.5.2012, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.270/01 of 2007/05, titled as Pat Ram versus Smt. Sewati and Civil Suit No. 271/01 of 2007/05, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? titled as Smt. Sewati versus Pat Ram and another, stands affirmed.. 2. PLAINTIFF, Pat Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and as such defendant Sewati be restrained from interfering with his possession. According to the plaintiff, vide sale deed dated 2.9.1982, he purchased land from Smt. Sewati but however particulars of the suit land (Khasra No.18), were inadvertently omitted to be recorded in the instrument of transfer. Defendant, Smt. Sewati not only resisted the suit by claiming ownership, title and possession of the suit land but in fact filed a separate suit, seeking a decree for injunction, restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her possession over the suit land. 3. BASED on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiff in civil suit No.270/1 of 2007/05 has become owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra no.21/1, measuring 9 -5 bighas and revenue entries showing position to the contrary are null and void?....OPP in civil suit No.270/1/2007/05. 2. Whether the plaintiff in civil suit No.270/1/2007/05 is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?.... OPP in civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05. 3. Whether the civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 is hit by the provision of Section 10 CPC?...OPD in civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 4. Whether the civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 is not maintainable?... OPD in civil suit 5. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff in civil suit no.270/1 of rt2007/05?... 3. Whether the civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 is hit by the provision of Section 10 CPC?...OPD in civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 4. Whether the civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 is not maintainable?... OPD in civil suit 5. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff in civil suit no.270/1 of rt2007/05?... OPD in civil suit no.270/1 of 2007/05 6. Whether the plaintiff in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05 is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?... OPP in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05 7. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05?.... OPD in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05 8. Whether the plaintiff in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05 is estopped due to her own act, conduct and acquiescence?... OPD in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05. 9. Whether the plaintiff in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05 has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit?... OPD in civil suit no.271/1 of 2007/05" 4. TRIAL court decreed the suit in the following terms: - "19. In the light of findings given on issues no.1 to 9 hereinabove, the civil suit titled as Pat Ram vs. Sewati Devi bearing C.S. No.270/01 of 2007/05 is hereby dismissed. However, civil suit titled as Sewati Devi vs. Pat Ram and another bearing C.S. No.271/01 of 2007/05 is decreed. Pat Ram, son of Sh. Hari Ram is hereby restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in the suit land in any manner. There is no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to records." Findings of fact, judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court stand affirmed in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. 6. NOTICEABLY, parties have been litigating since the year 2001 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, more so when no case for interference is made out. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. 6. NOTICEABLY, parties have been litigating since the year 2001 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, more so when no case for interference is made out. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the suit land was agreed to be sold and transferred by defendant Smt Sewati to the plaintiff or not. Undisputedly, either in the sale deed executed between the parties, registered on 2.9.1982 or otherwise there is nothing on record to show plaintiff's ownership or possession over the suit land. On the contrary, revenue entries continue to reflect defendant Smt. Sewati to be owner in possession of the same. Revenue record (Ex.PW1/B), much after execution of the sale deed is on record to this effect. Surprisingly, plaintiff has taken mutually contradictory pleas. In the absence of any proof of title, plaintiff has claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. Concurrently, both the Courts have held possession over the suit land to be that of the defendants. There is also nothing on record to establish plaintiff's open, continuous and hostile possession over the suit land since 2.9.1982. 7. AS such, there is no merit in the present appeal, hence, in my considered view, no question of law muchless substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The Courts below have also concurrently considered the material in its entirety. 8. AS such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference of this Court. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if.