RAM PIARI Vs. DEVI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the successors of defendant, who has suffered a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1995 dated 23.04.2002 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur, reversing judgment, decree dated 29.04.1995 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Bilaspur, in Case No. 8/1 of 1992.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Roshan Lal on the allegations that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 157, measuring 9 biswas, situated at village Dagrahan. Roshan Lal had moved an application for correction of revenue entry before Assistant Collector 2nd Grade which was decided by Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 19.11.1991. It was held that Roshan lal was tenant under Sukhia, the previous owner. The order dated 19.11.1991 is wrong, illegal. No tenancy was created in favour of Roshan Lal. The respondent had been cultivating the suit land, on 07.02.1992 Roshan Lal threatened to dispossess the respondent. Therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE replication was filed and the contents of plaint were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : - 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP. 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit? OPD. 5.Whether correct court fee has not been affixed?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 7.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 9.Whether defendant was inducted as tenant by Sukhia on payment of rent ˜10/ - as alleged in para No.2 of the written statement? OPD.10.Whether sale deed dated 4.9.1986 executed in favour of the plaintiff is result of undue influence and mis -representation as alleged? OPD. 11.Relief. The issues No. 3, 5 to 8 were not pressed. Issues No. 2,10 were answered in negative, issue No.1 partly in affirmative and issues No.4 and 9 in affirmative and the suit was dismissed by Sub Judge on 29.04.1995. The District Judge accepted the appeal on 23.04.2002 and decreed the suit of respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law: -1.Whether the learned lower appellate court is right in not taking into consideration the law laid down by this Honble Court wherein it has been held that the order passed by the revenue authorities under the H.P. Land Revenue Act is not assailable in Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act? 2.Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misappreciation of documents Exts. D2 to D14 as well as statement of DW4 who had inducted the appellant as tenant over the land in dispute?