BABU RAM Vs. POHLO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's ap-peal against the judgment and decree passed on 17/03/1980, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismiss-ing his appeal and, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 6/08/1979, by Senior-Sub-Judge, Una, by which suit of plaintiff respondent was decreed for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction.

(2.) Plaintiff claimed a decree for declara-tion on the basis that he was in actual cultivating possession of 11 Kanals 7 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672 and 674 situate in village Nandpur, Tehsil Amb., district Una, as a tenant under the defendant and the correction made in the revenue records in Rabi 1976 showing the defendant to be in cultivating possession was factually wrong, illegal, unauthorised, inef-fective and inoperative against his rights and as on the basis of this wrong entry in the revenue records, defendants had intention to interfere with his possession, therefore, as a consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defen-dant from causing any interference with his possession was also sought. Suit was resisted by the defendant by taking a plea that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and the same was in his possession. The Revenue Officer had rightly passed the order for correction of entry in his name after deleting the wrong entry which had earlier appeared in revenue records showing the plaintiff to be in possession. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had admitted, in writing, before the Panchayat that he was not in possession of the property. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide the suit was also chal-lenged by the defendant.

(3.) The trial Court held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant on payment of rent under the defendant. It also held the order passed by the Revenue Officer ordering the correction to be ineffec-tive and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and negatived the plea of the defen-dant that the plaintiff ever gave up the possession of the suit property. Suit was held to be entertainable by a Civil Court. In view of these findings, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The lower appellate Court con-firmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defen-dant has challenged the judgments and decrees of the Courts below in this regular second appeal.