SHIAM SINGH Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 22.8.1996 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit is entertainable in the civil court when the matter of conferment of proprietary rights was finally determined by the Compensation Officer under the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act?

(2.) FACTS , which have led to the filing of the present appeal and which are relevant for answering the aforesaid questions and deciding the appeal, may be noticed. There used to be three brothers, named Prem Singh, Kushal Singh and Nand Lal. They all were recorded as joint tenants on land, measuring 13 bighas, 4 biswas, 12 biswansi, situate in village Panjethi, Illauq Pachhiat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, as per description given in para 1 of the plaint. Owner of the land was Tarlok Nath temple. Earliest Jamabandi entry, recording the three brothers as joint tenants under the aforesaid land owner, pertains to the year 1947 -48, copy whereof is Ext. P -10. In the next Jamabandis for the years 1951 -52 (copy Ext. P -1) and 1955 -56 (copy Ext. P -6) also, all the three brothers were recorded as joint tenants, but the land is recorded in exclusive possession of Nand Lal as co -tenant and not in his individual capacity. On the strength of this entry, said Nand Lal applied to the Compensation Officer, under the H.P. Abolition of Big Land Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the above described land, on him. That application was allowed and the proprietary rights were conferred upon said Nand Lal, vide order dated 6.12.1973, and mutation was also attested on the basis of said order, on 3.1.1976, in favour of said Nand Lal. The other two brothers came to know about the said order dated 6.12.1973 and mutation dated 3.1.1976, some time in the year 1986. They immediately filed a suit, seeking declaration that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land with Nand Lal, their third brother, and by way of further relief they prayed for a decree of joint possession.

(3.) DEFENDANTS took the plea that their predecessor -in -interest Nand Lal was exclusive tenant on the suit land and the proprietary rights had rightly been conferred upon him to the exclusion of Prem Singh and Kushal Singh, the other two brothers, who also died during the pendency of the litigation and are now represented by their legal representatives. They are respondents herein.