SHRI DEV RAJ Vs. MANSHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal and he is being referred to as such. He filed a suit against the respondents -defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering in the land, as detailed in the suit (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the land being a co -sharer, in the village where the land is situate, and that defendants have no right to interfere with the same. According to him, 15 days prior to the filing of the suit, defendants attempted to interfere with his possession therefore, the suit had to be filed. When put to notice, the defendants filed their written statement. While controverting the pleas urged on behalf o the plaintiff, they submitted that the land, in question, is shamlat and it stood transferred to them, when some land was purchased by them from the plaintiff, as well as from other co -sharers of the village. In this background, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and no relief can be given to him in this suit. With a view to defeat the case of the plaintiff, defendants also pleaded that entry of correction of the revenue record was made by the Tehsildar settlement, Daultpur Chowk, Amb, vide Ext. D -5, in their favour. The order was passed by the Tehsildar settlement on 16.4.1990 in file No. 573/1989. Written statement was filed somewhere in the year 1989. Plaintiff was put to notice of the entry having been corrected in favour of the defendants with the filing of the written statement. Till date, this order has not been challenged by the plaintiff, legal position is that the order of Revenue Officer under HP. Land Revenue Act is always subject to the filing of the suit under section 46 of the HP. Land Revenue Act.

(2.) Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the order of the Tehsildar Settlement, Ext. D -5, is not only illegal and void but is also without jurisdiction and thus nonexistent in the eyes of law. He further assailed the said order and urged that it cannot be made the basis of establishing the title by the defendants. The said order of correction of revenue entries was passed more than a decade ago and has attained finality intra -parties. Though plaintiff had opportunity to challenge the same, instead of doing so, he accepted the same.

(3.) Trial court framed the following issues: