BALAK RAM Vs. KANEHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 41, 42, and 47 of 1967) raising, as they do, a common question, are being disposed of by one judgment. The facts of C.k. No. 41 of 1947 alone may be adverted to.

(2.) Balak Ram and Shiv Ram, sons of Bali Ram, instituted a suit for permanent injunction against Kanebya, son of Bhajju, restraining him from interfering with their possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas situated in village Rajana, Fargana Jajhot, Kasumpti. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they were the owners in possession of the land in dispute and that Kanehya defendant had been wrongly recorded in the revenue papers to be in possession of the suit land as a tenant. The defendant had made an application before the Compensation Officer, Mahasu for acquiring proprietary rights of the land in dispute under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereafter called the Abolition Act) on the basis of the aforasaid entries in revenue papers. The Compensation Officer had rejected that application by holding that the defendant was neither a tenant nor in possession of the land in dispute. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Mahasu, refersed that finding and held that Kanehya defendant was a tenant of the land in dispute and was also in possession thereof and was thus entitled to acquire its ownership under the Abolition Act. The plaintiffs pleaded that the judgment of the learned District Judge was illegal, against facts and inoperative. As Kanehya defendant was threatening to take possession of the land in dispute on the strength of the judgment of the learned District Judge, it was prayed that he be restrained by a perpetual injuntion from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant and it was inter alia pleaded that the order of the learned District Judge under the Abolition Act was final and binding on the parties to the suit and operated as res judicata. The defendant claimed to have become the owner of the land in dispute by virtue of the said order and being in possession, there was no point in granting any injunction against him. The jurisdiction of the civil Court was also challenged on the basis of section 12(2) and (4) of the Abolition Act.