JAGIRI LAL Vs. KARTAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in civil appeal No. 66/1993. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ˜the plaintiffs for convenience sake) filed a suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una for declaration to the effect that they were in possession as tenants -at -will on payment of rent under the appellants -defendants (hereinafter referred to as ˜the defendants for convenience sake) and have become owners of the suit land as detailed in the plaint. They had also prayed for the issuance of permanent injunction by way of consequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner on their peaceful possession. Defendants No.1 and 2 Sh Jagiri Lal and Tarsem Lal filed separate written statements and have denied the averments and assertion contained in the plaint. Defendant No.1 has specifically taken the plea that Relu and Jhaunfi and the plaintiffs neither came in possession of the suit land nor have they been inducted as tenants -at -will on the suit land. Defendant No.1 is a purchaser on the basis of the sale deed executed and registered on 26.6.1979 for a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. Defendant No.2 had stated that neither the plaintiff nor their predecessors -in -interest were ever inducted as tenants or came in possession of the suit land. The trial court decreed the suit on 16.3.1993. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Una. He dismissed the same on 3.11.1998. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 Sh. Jagiri Lal. Defendant No.2 has been added as proforma defendant. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) MR . Baldev Singh, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. He has contended that the bare perusal of revenue record reveals that the plaintiffs predecessors -in interest were recorded as tenants -at -will and they have been conferred with proprietary rights on the basis of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. He has further contended that the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it was required to be pleaded specifically by the defendants. He lastly contended that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

(3.) THEIR Lordships have held as under: