MOTI Vs. AJUDH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second appeal filed by the defendant -appellant against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on June 28, 1979, affirming the judgment and decree passed on August 9, 1978 by the Sub -Judge First Class, Dalhousie, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs -respondents: Plaintiff Shyam Sunder, predecessor of the present respondents, claimed a decree for declaration that he being a cultivating tenant under the State with respect to the land measuring 2 Bighas 5 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 661 and 666/1 situate at Bhanota, Tehsil and District Chamba and Moti appellant having no right, title and interest therein the order passed by the Compensation Officer, Chamba, on December 3, 1968 (wrongly mentioned as May 6, 1969 in the plaint), conferring proprietory rights upon him on the basis of which mutation No. 316 dated May 11, 1969, was attested, was unjust and illegal be declared to be ineffective and inoperative upon his rights being the result of mis -statement on the part of Moti and he be declared entitled to acquire proprietary rights on payment of compensation.

(2.) By way of consequential relief, a decree for possession of the suit land was also prayed on the basis that the suit land was in his cultivating possession. Moti -defendant and Buta were engaged as labourers to cultivate the same as per the agreement dated September 6, 1966 and Moti was never inducted as a tenant on this land by him. It was further averred that Moti wrongly by claiming himself to be a tenant cultivating the land had acquired proprietory rights under section 27 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) on the basis of the order passed by the Compensation Officer, Chamba, in consequence whereof mutation of conferment of proprietory rights was attested on May 11, 1969, and as there was no relation of landlord and tenant between him and Moti and be being in cultivating possession was entitled to be conferred with proprietory rights under section 27 (4) of the Act and since the same had not been conferred upon him, despite reminders and service of a notice dated April 27, 1969 under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he was entitled for grant of a decree for declaration and as the defendant was in illegal possession, therefore, he was also entitled for grant of a decree for possession. .

(3.) The suit was resisted by Moti defendant -appellant by claiming himself to be in cultivating possession of the land and further pleaded that proprietory rights were rightly conferred upon him by the Compensation Officer in exercise of his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act and as the suit was not filed within a period of one year from the date of order, therefore, the same was barred by limitation. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and the present respondents, who are his legal representatives, were brought on record. The trial court decreed the suit and the lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.