VED PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs. PUNNU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-appellants have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No.71-K/99, titled as Chunka and another versus Roshan Lal and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 11.8.1999, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Kangra, in Civil Suit No.483/90 (RBT No.195/96), titled as Nikku and others versus Roshan Lal and others, stands reversed.

(2.) One Hoshiaru was non-occupancy tenant in land comprising Khata No.115 min, Khatoni No.223, Khasra No.966, 968, Kitta 2, measuring 0-60-78 hectares, situate in Mohal Shahpur, Tehsil and District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Hoshiaru was succeeded by his five sons, i.e. Nikku (plaintiff No.1), Chhunko (plaintiff No.2), Punnu (plaintiff No.3), Tinoo (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.4, 5 & 6) as also Dharam Chand (proforma-defendant No.5). According to the plaintiffs, all legal heirs of Hoshiaru continued to be in possession of the suit land as tenants and by virtue of provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, they perfected their title over the suit land. However, vide mutation No.317 dated 18.10.1986, names of Roshan Lal (defendant No.1), Ved Parkash (defendant No.2), Suridner Kumar (defendant No.3) and Dharam Chand (defendant No.4) were reflected as owners in possession. Defendants No.1 to 4 are sons of Girdhari through whom Hoshiaru possessed the land as a tenant. Apprehending threat of dispossession, plaintiffs filed suit, praying as under:

(3.) Contesting defendants resisted the suit, inter alia taking a plea that the same was barred by principles of resjudicata, in view of the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1986 passed in their favour in Civil Suit No.334 of 1985. Plaintiffs' possession over the suit land was specifically denied by the defendants.