RAM KRISHAN Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 15.1.2014, rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No. 10 -N/13 of 2013.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiffs" for the sake of convenience) filed a suit for possession against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for the sake of convenience) on the basis of title of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 66/156, bearing Khasra No. 128 measuring 0 -09 -22 hectares, i.e. 1 -2 bighas as per missal haquiat for the year 2004 -05, corresponding to old Khata Khatauni No. 162/287, Khasra No. 28 as per jamabandi for the year 2000 -01, situated at Mauza Bhatanwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, one Babu, predecessor of the plaintiffs, was owner of Khasra No. 282/26, total measuring 14 -12 bighas, out of which 1 -2 bigha was "banjar kadim" and the remaining land was cultivable. He inducted grand father of defendant, namely, Panchi as non -occupancy tenant on Khasra No. 282/26 min measuring 9 -2 bighas whose new number is 27, on payment of 1/4th batai. Adjoining to this Khasra number, there was uncultivated land measuring 1 -2 bigha. On remaining 4 -8 bighas land out of total 14 -12 bighas, he inducted Banta as non -occupancy tenant. After the death of Panchi, his son Gurdiyal inherited the non occupancy tenancy rights of his father on Khasra No. 282/26 min measuring 9 -2 bighas and after inheritance, he encroached upon the adjoining banjar land, and made it cultivable. Thus, he acceded the same with his tenancy and became a non -occupancy tenant on Khasra Nos. 27 and 28 Gurdiyal acquired the proprietary rights of 7 -16 bighas and remained as non -occupancy tenant over 1 -6 bigha land Khasra No. 27 and also remained tenant over Khasra No. 28, i.e. the suit land and is cultivating the same openly to the knowledge of the plaintiff as non -occupancy tenant. According to him, his father was in possession of Khasra Nos. 27 and 28.