IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 205 of 1999 Reserved on: 1.3.2011. Date of decision : 8.3.2011. Bala Ram …Appellant. Versus Dassi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By this order, Regular Second Appeal No. 205 of 1999 and CMP No. 698 of 2004, whereby the appellant has prayed that the respondents be punished for disobedience of the orders of this Court, are being disposed of since common questions of law are involved. 2. This undisputed facts are that Smt. Surti Devi was the mother of the plaintiff Bala Ram and his two brothers Jindu Ram and Dola Ram. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 Respondents No. 1 to 3 are the widow and two sons of Jindu Ram and respondents No. 4 to 8 are the widow, sons and daughters of Dola Ram. It is not disputed that Smt. Surti Devi executed a Will Ext.PA on 14.6.1982 whereby she bequeathed her immoveable property comprised in Khasra Nos. 4548, 4748, 4669, 4646, 4652 and 4647 to Shri Dola Ram. She also by the same will bequeathed Khasra Nos. 3337, 4625, 4817, 4816, 4815, 4819, 4818, 4820, 4652, 4647 to plaintiff Bala Ram. In her will she also bequeathed her house and surrounding grass land to three sons jointly in equal shares. She bequeathed the remaining land to her 3rd son Jindu Ram on the condition that he would maintain her and if he does not maintain her then the remaining land would also go to all the three sons in equal shares. It is also not disputed that mutation in terms of the Will was first attested in the year 1991 but Dola Ram filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter remitted and thereafter in the year 1994 land was mutated in terms of the Will. However, the revenue authorities found that 3 though in the Will Smt. Surti Devi had stated that she was sole owner of the land mentioned in some of the khasra numbers but in fact she only had a share in the land and therefore, the mutation was attested only in respect of the share of Surti Devi in these khasra numbers. 3. Plaintiff Bala Ram filed a suit stating that Surti Devi died on 20.2.1990. He relied on the Will dated 14.6.1982. There were two grievances raised in the plaint, firstly that Surti Devi had bequeathed the whole khasra numbers to the plaintiff but the revenue authorities had only attested mutation with regard to part of the khasra numbers and further that Jindu had not rendered any service to Surti Devi. The land which had been mutated in his favour should be mutated in favour of all the three brothers in equal shares. 4. It appears that in both the Courts below the plaintiff did not seriously rake up the plea that Jindu had not looked after his mother. In fact, if Jindu had not looked after his mother, she could have easily cancelled the Will in her life time, which she 4 has not done. There is no reliable evidence on record to show that Jindu did not look after his mother and in fact this question does not seem to have been agitated in earnest before the Courts below. The main ground which has been raised before the Courts below is that in the Will Surti Devi had stated that she was in exclusive ownership and possession of whole Khasra numbers 3332, 3337, 3536, 4625 and 4645 but the plaintiff was only given 7/24 share in the land. 5. From the revenue record, it is apparent that Smt. Surti Devi was not the owner of the entire khasra numbers and there were other co-owners in the same. She could not have bequeathed anything more than her share in the khasra numbers. Therefore, both the Courts below were fully justified in holding that the mutation attested by the revenue authorities was correct since they had mutated the entire share of Surti Devi in these khasra numbers in favour of the plaintiff. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 5 CMP No. 698 of 2004: 7. When the appeal was admitted for hearing an order was passed after hearing the parties on 29.09.2000, which reads as follows:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant material on record. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below the interest of justice will be met if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo qua the possession of the suit land. This application is therefore allowed and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo qua the possession of the suit land as on the date of the judgement of the Appellate Court.” 8. It would be pertinent to mention that when respondents No. 1 to 3 filed written statement to the suit they clearly stated that they were only in possession of the land which had been granted to them by Smt. Surti Devi in her will. I am in this application concerned mainly with Khasra Number 4625 since the allegation is that the respondents alongwith 7-8 labourers illegally trespassed over Khasra No. 4625 and plucked the apples from there. In the written statement defendants No. 1 to 3 did not claim that they had any share in this land nor 6 did they claim that they were in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4625. In fact, they clearly stated that Jindu and thereafter the replying defendants were in possession of the property inherited by Jindu from their grand mother and not in possession of any other property. In the Will Jindu was not given any part of khasra No. 4625. Evidence was recorded in the contempt proceedings and DW-1 Jhabe Ram appeared as the sole witness for the respondent. In his statement he stated that khasra number 4625 is with the respondents and the land was given to the respondents. According to him the apple trees on the land were being looked after by the respondents since the year 1990 and the crop of khasra No. 4625 was sold by them. This witness who had filed the written statement and had clearly admitted the Will of Smt.Surti Devi and had also stated that he and other heirs of Jindu Ram were in possession of the land given to their father Jindu by Smt. Surti, now had the temerity to state that Surti had not executed any Will and denied that as per the Will the whole of Khasra No. 7 4625 had gone to the appellant. This statement is totally false since as per the Will of Surti Devi and admitted by the respondents entire khasra No. 4625 was bequeathed by Surti in favour of plaintiff Bala Ram. However, as pointed out above the revenue officials found that in fact Surti had 7/24 share in the land and therefore, mutation in favour of the plaintiff was attested only qua 7/24 share in khasra No. 4625. There is no manner of doubt that the respondents had neither any right on any part of this khasra number nor were in possession of any part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4625. In fact, till he appeared in the witness box the respondents had never claimed any right in this land. It is thus obvious and stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondents No. 1 to 3 have violated the orders of the Court and forcibly sold the apple crop out of Khasra No. 4625 which fact is admitted by Jhabe Ram. 9. Though, I have dismissed the appeal of the appellants, it is admitted that respondents have no right, title or interest in Khasra No. 4625 and 8 therefore they cannot interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in this khasra number. Since the respondents have violated the orders of the Court they are liable to be punished. Normally, in a case like the present one where there is gross violation of the orders of this Court and the contemner takes up a plea which is totally false, I would have ordered that the respondents be detained in civil prison. However, since the appeal has been dismissed and I feel that the interest of justice will be served if the respondents (Jhaba Ram S/o Jindu Ram, Nihal Chand S/o Jindu Ram and Pinku S/o Nihal Chand) are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to Shri Bala Ram. This compensation be paid within three months and in case such compensation is not paid then the appellant can apply for attachment and sale of the property of the respondents. It is also made clear that in case respondents do not desist from interfering in the land the contempt would be deemed to be aggravated and further action may be taken. 9 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed but the CMP No.698 of 2004 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8th March, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.