HARMESH CHAND Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Judgment and decree passed by the Court below have been assailed. Plaintiffs filed a suit praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is categorically pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 Amar Singh, plaintiff No. 2 Gusain Dass, defendant No. 1 Munshi Ram, defendant No. 2 Kishan Dass, defendant No. 3 Bir Singh, are sons of Ram Ditta, who was tenant in possession to the extent of half share in the suit land. By virtue of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) sons of Ram Ditta became co-owners of the suit land. Neither was Ram Ditta ever ejected from the tenanted land during his life time nor did his legal heirs relinquish their share in favour of any person. After the death of Ram Ditta joint possession and ownership of all of his legal heirs continued throughout. However, some time prior to 1986, defendant No. 1 Munshi Ram started asserting his exclusive ownership and possession over the suit land. As such plaintiffs made inquiries and obtained revenue record, which revealed that in the year 1971-72 defendant No. 1, got his name exclusively entered in the possessory column alongwith other co-owners i.e. defendants No. 4 and 5. Defendant No. 1 was alone shown to be owner in possession to the extent of half share even in the revenue record pertaining to the year 1982-83. It was pleaded that revenue record from the year 1971-72 onwards was wrongly prepared by the revenue officials, behind the plaintiffs' back and against the provisions of law. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs placed on record revenue record pertaining to the year 1966-67 showing Ram Ditta to be sole tenant in possession of the suit land.

(3.) Suit was primarily resisted by defendant No. 1, who took up a plea that his brothers were settled outside the village and as such they never cultivated the land. He alone did so. This position was so even during the life time of Ram Ditta. Rent was paid by him alone to the owner Gurdass Ram.