By order dated 02.12.1987, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by Reshmoo Devi for possession as barred by limitation.
Involving the same issue, Attar Singh filed a Suit being Suit No.
By order dated 29.11.1986, sub Judge Ist Class, Shimla held that Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, being the son of real brother of Shankar Lal, husband of Reshmoo Devi is the only legal representative.
501 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
Defendant No.2 purchased the said land as benami in the name of his wife Kamla Devi defendant No.1 , who was a minor at that time.
Against the said order, Kamla Devi defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mahesu, who, by his order dated 14.12.1966, dismissed the same.
501 of 2009 before the High Court.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Compensation Officer, one Raghunath Singh Thakur of Marina Hotel, Shimla filed a Civil Suit No.
During the pendency of the application, Shanker Lal died on 07.06.1960 and after his death, his wife Reshmoo Devi was substituted as his legal representative.
Against the said order, Attar Singh filed F.A. No.
Aggrieved by that judgment, Kamla Devi filed an appeal before the sub Judge, Ist Class, Shimla.
In order to ascertain an answer for the above question, we have to companysider whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant can be decided merely on the basis of the plaint and whether the other materials filed by the defendant in support of the application can also be looked into.
Heard Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. T. V. Ratnam, learned companynsel for respondent No.2.
80/1 of 1962 in the Court of Sub Judge, Mahesu against Madna Wati and Kamla Devi alleging that the suit land along with other land property was mortgaged with him by Madna Wati and, therefore, she had numberrights to sell or transfer the suit land.
After the sale of suit land, defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 was substituted as respondents in place of Madna Wati in the application pending before the Compensation Officer.
was registered as Civil Appeal No.
Vide his order dated 31.08.1964, the Compensation Officer allowed the application and granted proprietary rights to Reshmoo Devi.
61/1 of 1976 before the Sub Judge I , Shima which was decreed in her favour on 25.03.1985.
During the pendency of the appeal, Reshmoo Devi died on 25.09.1985.
Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and Reshmoo Devi also preferred an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Shimla.
Vide order dated 31.07.2009, the District Judge Forest allowed the appeal.
The said suit was decreed in favour of Raghunath Singh.
Originally the land in question was owned by Smt.
Challenging the said order, the appellant herein and his sister, Kular Mani, filed R.S.A. No.
424/1 of 99/97 in the Court of sub Judge IV, Shimla which was dismissed for default on 23.02.2001 but the same was restored vide order dated 14.08.2002.
In the meantime, Madna Wati sold the suit land to Panu Ram defendant No.2 on 22.10.1960.
The only point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the High Court is justified in companyfirming the decision of the lower appellate Court and remitting the matter to trial Court for fresh companysideration of all the issues.
Lari Mohansingh Madna Wati and was in occupation of Shankar Lal as a tenant.
The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Reshmoo Devi and set aside the order of the sub Judge Mahesu to the extent it affected her rights and further directed her to seek remedy against Kamla Devi by a separate suit.
By order dated 17.11.2004, the Civil Judge allowed the application and dismissed the suit filed by Attar Singh.
The trial Court allowed the application of the appellant defendant No.1 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint was barred under the provisions of Order IX Rules 8 9 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 1 3 4 b of CPC.
Both the appeals were transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
By the impugned order dated 20.09.2010, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Challenging the said Will, Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, who was the nephew of Reshmoo Devi, filed an application to implead himself as L.R. of Reshmoo Devi.
An application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short CPC was filed by the sister of Reshmoo Devi for bringing her on record as legal representative L.R. However, another application was filed by Hira Singh and Attar Singh that they may be brought on record as L.Rs of Reshmoo Devi on the basis of a Will.
He again filed a Civil Suit No.
After the death of Attar Singh, Kamla Devi was brought on record as his legal representative.
It is relevant to point out the findings of the trial Court particularly with reference to the Suit No.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, since the possession was forcibly taken from Reshmoo Devi, she filed a suit for recovery of possession being Suit No.
After companying into force of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, Shanker Lal, moved an application on 21.01.1957, for proprietary rights under Section 11 of the said Act before the Compensation Officer, Mahesu.
10/1 of 2004 before the Civil Judge Jr. Division II Rohru, Shimla for possession of the suit land belonging to Reshmoo Devi.
During the companyrse of proceedings, the appellant herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on certain grounds.
The appellant herein, who was substituted as L.R., filed second appeal being R.S.A. No.113 of 1988 before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court on 25.05.2000.
90 S/13 of 2005 before the District Judge Forest , Shimla.
Against that order, Kamla Devi Ors.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.S.A. No.
filed special leave petition before this Court which was dismissed.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
The appeal filed by Kamla Devi Ors.
Against the said order, the appellant herein filed an appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
The said order of the trial Court was set aside by the first appellate Court on the ground that the trial Court had taken the pleas from the written statement of the defendant which is number permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the High Court in the second appeal companyfirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court.
118 S/13 of 1987.
Brief facts One Shanker Lal owned and possessed several lands in District Shimla including the land in question.
