Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 760 (HP)

Prem Pal v. Hitender Singh

2016-05-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2015, rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13-N/14 of 2015. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents restraining them from interfering and dispossessing the petitioners from Kh. No. 141/1 (old) Kh. Nos. 1254 and 1255 (new), measuring 2 biswas, situated in Mauza Up-Sampada, Paonta Sahib-II, District Sirmaur, H.P. and further restraining the respondents from alienating and creating any charge or third party interest in the suit land. According to the averments made in the plaint, Civil Suit No. 144/1 of 1971 titled as Hitender Singh vs. Kishna was decided by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Nahan. The suit filed by Hitender Singh for possession was dismissed and the judgment was affirmed by the learned District Judge, Nahan. They were in continuous possession of the suit land and dwelling house also exists on the suit land. The respondents were bent upon to dispossess the petitioners. 3. The suit was contested by the respondents. The ownership and possession of the petitioners was denied. The respondents have asserted their possession over Kh. Nos. 1254, 1255 and 1256 on the basis of compromise dated 14.9.1988 and consequent judgment and decree dated 20.9.1988 rendered by this Court in RSA No. 89 of 1977. 4. The petitioners have also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib on 30.7.2014. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2014 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur. The same was dismissed on 22.8.2015. Hence, this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment dated 22.8.2015, carefully. 6. The present petitioners are the successors of Kishna against whom respondent No. 1 Hitender Singh had filed suit bearing No. 144/1 of 1971. The compromise was entered into between the parties in the year 1968. Respondent No. 1 had relinquished two biswas of land. Kishna has constructed a house over the same. The compromise was upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur vide judgment dated 3.5.1982. The compromise was entered into between the parties in the year 1968. Respondent No. 1 had relinquished two biswas of land. Kishna has constructed a house over the same. The compromise was upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur vide judgment dated 3.5.1982. However, according to the respondents, a fresh compromise was arrived at between the parties on 14.9.1988, on the basis of which, judgment dated 20.9.1988 was rendered by this Court in RSA No. 89 of 1977. Thus, according to them, the rights of the parties would be determined by the compromise dated 14.9.1988. This judgment dated 20.9.1988 has attained finality. Though, according to the petitioners, the house has been constructed on the property, however, the possession over the same has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. 7. The learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur has also seen the photographs and from these photographs, it reveals that the house shown in the photographs has been abandoned and it did not appear that anyone was in possession of the same. In the compromise on the basis of which judgment and decree was rendered in RSA No. 89 of 1977 dated 20.9.1988, it was agreed between the parties that respondent No. 1 Hitender Singh would obtain 6 biswas of Kh. No. 141/1 (which is part of the suit land), now converted into Kh. No. 1254 and he would hand over the possession of Kh. No. 141/2 to respondent No. 2 Gian Chand. Thus Kh. No. 141/1 went to the share of Hitender Singh and Kh. No. 141/2 went to the share of respondent No. 2 Gian Chand. The petitioners neither have a prima-facie case nor balance of convenience lies in their favour. The judgment dated 22.8.2015 is reasoned one and calls for no interference. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.