Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 487 (HP)

Sita Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2015-05-07

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 1.7.2003 rendered by learned Additional District Judge(I) Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 114-N/2000. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff' for brevity sake) filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (herein after referred to as 'defendants' for brevity sake) on the averments that he was owner of 127 Khair trees, 360 firewood trees and bushes growing on the land comprised in Khewat No. 43 min Khatauni No. 84 min, Khasra Nos. 167, 168, 252, 257, 259, 262, 264, 274 and 283 measuring 8-34-48 hectares, situate in Mohal Luterh, Mauza Anuhi, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. According to him, these trees were sold to him by Shri Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and respondents have no right to refuse sanction for felling of trees. Permission, in fact, was previously accorded in favour of Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir and Government has approved the sale of trees in his favour. Mohatmim died on 25.7.1993. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. It was admitted that conditional sanction for felling of trees was given in favour of Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir. Alleged agreement to sell the trees did not confer any right to sell the trees. 4. Issues were framed on 28.10.1996 by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class. He dismissed the suit on 1.8.2000. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala. He also dismissed the appeal on 1.7.2003. Hence, this Appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 24.12.2003: "Whether in view of the death of Jagar Nath, Mohitmim of the temple, who had earlier processed the matter for grant of requisite permission from the Forest Department, will have the effect of re-instating the matter afresh by the legal representatives? If no, whether the impugned judgment and decree can be maintainable?" 6. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that his client has become owner of the trees on the basis of conditional permission accorded to Mohatmim Jagan Nath. Respondents were bound to complete codal formalities by permitting him to fell the trees. 7. Mr. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that his client has become owner of the trees on the basis of conditional permission accorded to Mohatmim Jagan Nath. Respondents were bound to complete codal formalities by permitting him to fell the trees. 7. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, Jagan Nath was Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir. He died on 25.7.1993. Jagan Nath was in possession of the suit land. He made an application to the Government for felling trees standing on the suit land. Sanction was accorded by the Government. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Jagan Nath for the sale of trees for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. However no felling order was issued by the Forest Department. He issued notices Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2. According to him, he was entitled for felling orders. 10. PW-2 Hem Raj deposed that on 5.12.1992, he prepared Ext. P-2/A at the behest of the Sita Ram and Jagan Nath. Contents of the agreement were read over to them and they have admitted them to be true and have put their signatures on the same. In his presence, Rs. 60,000/- were paid by Sita Ram to Jagan Nath. 11. PW-3 Devi Dass has deposed that plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell Khair trees for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- as per document Ext. PW-2/A. Plaintiff has also placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 as Ext. P-3. 12. DW-1 Kishori Lal has proved Ext. DW-1/A, copy of application, Ext. DW-1/B letter written by DFO and Ext. DW- 1/C receipt of said letter. According to him, felling order was not issued in favour of the plaintiff because of stay issued by learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala vide Ext. DW-1/D. 13. Plaintiff has claimed ownership of the trees on the basis of Ext. PW-2/A. Ext. PW-2/A is a receipt. It is not even an agreement to sell. Permission to fell trees could also not be granted since learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala has ordered the parties to maintain status quo as per Ext. DW-1/D. 13. Plaintiff has claimed ownership of the trees on the basis of Ext. PW-2/A. Ext. PW-2/A is a receipt. It is not even an agreement to sell. Permission to fell trees could also not be granted since learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala has ordered the parties to maintain status quo as per Ext. PW- 1/D. Only conditional sanction order was issued in favour of Jagan Nath, Mohatmim. He died on 25.7.1993. Ownership was with Jagan Nath being Mohatmim of the Mahadev Mandir. In view of this, plaintiff was required to seek fresh permission for felling of the trees. He has only issued a notice under Section 80 CPC. 14. There is no merit in the contention raised by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that his client has become owner of the trees merely on the basis of Ext. PW-2/A. This document can not be termed as a sale deed. Plaintiff has not arrayed the legal heirs of Late Jagan Nath as party in the Civil Suit. Learned first appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was premature as conditional sanction order made in favour of Jagan Nath has also lapsed after his death. 15. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.