MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. SOMA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs having lost in both the Courts have come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 13.06.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2000, affirming judgment, decree dated 29.02.2000 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge,Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 69/1993. Some of the parties have died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. The parties in this judgment are referred to as appellants/plaintiffs and defendant No.1/respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the revenue entries in jamabandi for the year 1974 -75 qua the shares of the plaintiffs out of land comprised in Khasra No. 802/1, measuring 3 -0 -17 bighas, mauza Delag Tikkari, Tehsil Chachiot ( for short 'Suit Land ') and mutation No. 401 conferring proprietary rights in favour of defendant No.1 be declared wrong, illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs are owners in possession of their shares in the suit land. In case, the defendant No.1 is found in possession of the suit land qua the shares of the plaintiffs or defendant No.1 succeeded in taking forcible possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, then decree for possession of the suit land in the alternative. The plaintiffs prayed consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering over the suit land.

(3.) THE further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1 has manipulated wrong entries in the column of possession qua the shares of the plaintiffs showing defendant No.1 as non occupancy tenant in connivance with lower revenue staff or due to some clerical mistake behind the back and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 was never inducted as non -occupancy tenant by plaintiffs over their shares nor defendant No.1 remained in possession of the suit land over the shares of plaintiffs. There is no order of the competent Officer to show the entry of tenancy of defendant No.1 in the revenue record. It has been stated that entry of tenancy of defendant No.1 in the jamabandi 1974 -75 and consequent conferment of proprietary rights vide mutation No. 401 in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong and illegal. It has been stated that plaintiffs came to know first time about the wrong revenue entries and conferment of proprietary rights vide mutation No. 401 on 04.05.1993 when plaintiff No.3 received summons from the Court where the defendant No.1 had filed a suit for partition.