BIRBAL Vs. UDHAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 (old) of the Code of Civil Procedure the sole question for determination raised by the appellant is as to whether the civil courts have no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the suit in the facts and circumstances of the instant Us.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Gorkbu, alleged non -occupancy tenant sought declaration of his status against defendant Birbal who was allegedly interfering in his possession. In addition, he also prayed that in case he is found to have been dispossessed from the suit land, then relief of possession be also given. Admittedly, as per pleadings of the defendant, the plaintiff was initially inducted by Shri Lachhman, maternal grand -father of Birbal9 defendant, in the year 1964 in the suit land measuring 39 kanak 15 marlas situate in Tika Kaloba, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra The case of the plaintiff is that Birbal, defendant, after retirement from the Army in the year 1974 started interfering in his possession since October, 1974. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought the above said reliefs.

(3.) Birbal, defendant, resisted and contested the suit by raising a preliminary objection with respect to jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognisance of the suit On merits, he claimed that the plaintiff was never inducted as a tenant but was cultivating the land during the absence of the defendant for a fixed period of 10 years, as stated above, and thereafter he had relinquihsed the possession of the suit land in October, 1974. Accordingly, he claimed to be in possession since then.