DEV RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Vs. KARTARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Una, dated September 17, 1993.

(2.) Plaintiff/appel Jam s filed a suit before learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, for injunction seeking to restrain the defendant/respondent Shri Karatara, from interferring in their possession over the land comprised in khasra Number 63/21/1 situate in village Takka of Tehsil and District Una measuring 5 kanals as per jamabandi for the year 1980 -81. Plaintiffs, in the alternative, prayed for a decree of possession in case defendant dispossesses the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is: Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land in dispute and the defendant, without any right, title or interest, is threatening to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs. The defendant resists the suit. Allegations are controverted. It is pleaded that father of defendant Gosain was the tenant of the suit land. The disputed land was earlier comprised in Khasra No. 1624 and 1626. These Khasra Nos. were changed to khasra numbers R -63/2101 (disputed land), R -64/2503 and R -68/101. The entire land is in actual cultivating possession of the defendant. However, the plaintiffs, in connivance with the consolidation authorities got the entries changed in the revenue record to show the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. It is the case of the defendant that Shri Gosain, father of the defendant and one Labhu, were in cultivating possession of the entire land comprised in khasra number 1624 and 1626. In the year 1926 -27, Labhu left the cultivation and Gosain continued to cultivate the land till his death. The suit land, after having been allotted new khasra Numbers, continued to be in possession of Gosain. However, in kharif 1969, the column of cultivation was wrongly and illegally changed, without notice to the defendant. It is the further case of the defendant that khasra number R -64/2503 was also carved out from khasra numbers 1624 and 1626 but this khasra number was shown in the revenue record, after consolidation, in the possession of the defendant and he was vested with the ownership rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Tenancy Act for short). It is the case of the defendant that though defendant was not shown to be in possession of the remaining land, in the revenue record, but he has become the owner of the entire land under the Tenancy Act.