PREM SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent-defendant, namely, Suresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for brevity sake). According to the plaintiffs, the suit land, as detailed in the plaint, was previously owned by the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant and possessed by the plaintiffs as non- occupancy tenants. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had acquired the proprietary rights under the H.P. Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. The patta was issued by the Compensation Officer in the year 1966. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs became owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, the plaintiffs have inherited his rights and they have become owners in possession of the suit land. They came to know that during the operation of consolidation of holdings, the revenue record has been wrongly maintained. According to them, the defendant has been shown as owner to the extent of 11 shares out of 20 shares and the plaintiffs were only shown owners in possession to the extent of 9 shares, whereas in the column of possession, the plaintiffs are shown in possession as co-sharers, i.e., joint with the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they have become owners by virtue of operation of the H.P. Tenancy Land Reforms Act of 1972. The defendant has no right, title or interest in the same and the entries showing the name of the defendant are wrong, illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs have objected about the wrong entries before the authorities, however, no decision was taken. The defendant was requested to get the revenue record corrected. It is in these circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed by the plaintiff. The issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class on 06.05.1996. He decreed the suit on 30.10.1999. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. The same was allowed on 18.11.2002. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.