SUKH RAM Vs. KHUSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.93/2008.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein referred to as "plaintiff" for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "defendants" for convenience sake). The dispute between the parties is qua the land comprised in Khewat No. 447, khatauni No. 783, Khasra No. 281 as entered in jamabandi for the year 1995-96, situated in village Arniala, Tehsil & District Una,. Case put up by the plaintiff in the plaint is that he is in occupation of the suit land as tenant since 1960-61. He was inducted as a tenant by Shri Santu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. A sum of ` 1000-/ was paid in lump sum to Shri Santu. He installed a sugarcane crusher at the spot and also raised a temporary super-structure after taking the land on lease permanently. The consolidation proceedings were commenced in the village in the year 1960-61. The spot was inspected by the revenue authorities. His possession was recorded over the suit land by the consolidation authorities. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants never raised any dispute over the said entry before the revenue authorities. However, the rent and lease money, which were paid by him in lump sum to Shri Santu were not recorded in the revenue record. He was shown as kabij over the suit property in the revenue record. The settlement took place in the area and his possession was duly recorded over the land in question. According to him, he is in occupation of the suit land. According to him, he being a tenant or lessee has become the owner of the suit land after coming info force Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The defendants moved an application for correction of the revenue entries in the year 1990. The same was allowed by the Land Reforms Officer on 27.3.1999. The appeal instituted by him before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Una was dismissed on 17.1.2002. The defendants taking advantage of the illegal orders passed by the revenue officers are threatening to get his name deleted from the revenue record without any right, title and authority. It is in these circumstances, the suit was instituted.

(3.) NOTICES were issued to the defendants on 24.11.2010. Mr. Ajay Sharma has put in appearance on behalf of the defendants.