PREM SUSHIL Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs -appellants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 174 of 1992 decided on 30.11.2002, whereby the dismissal of their suit was upheld. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) PRECISELY , the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The appellants hereinafter to be called as 'the plaintiffs' claim themselves owners -in -possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 22R/18/1 min and disputed tenancy of the defendants over it being, wrong, baseless and without any authority in their plaint that the suit land was owned by them and the entries in the name of respondents/ defendant as tenant are wrong and baseless. Their further contention is that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 327/1, 328, 329, 330/1, measuring 12 Kanals 16 Marlas and the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 325, 326 and 327/2 measuring 10 Kanals 15 Marlas pertaining to the plaintiffs was mortgaged with possession in favour of Shankar Dass, Hans Raj and Bishamber Dass sons of Shri Shis Ram. During consolidation proceedings in the year 1965, the plaintiffs were allotted different land including suit khasra No. 22R/16/2 measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas. It is alleged that during Girdawari of Rabi 1968, the defendant got himself inducted as a tenant of Khasra No. 22R/16/2 in connivance with the consolidation staff, which was later on revoked by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, thereafter it started in the year 1970. The land which was mortgaged with Shankar Dass and others was got redeemed by the plaintiffs. Its mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 4.7.1970. When consolidation proceedings were again taken up in the village, the land measuring 13 Kanal 17 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 207, Khata Khatauni No. 207/466 min and Khasra Nos. 22R/13/2, 17, 18/1 min and 22R/18/1 was allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant again in connivance with the consolidation staff got his name entered in Khasra Nos. 22R/18/1 as tenant. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that they are continuing in possession of the suit land after its redemption, but the entries contrary to it in favour of the defendant are wrong and illegal, thus sought declaration to this effect being illegal, unauthorized and in -effective with consequential relief of injunction, in alternative for possession.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed following issues: -