VED PRAKASH Vs. SATYA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the trial Court are in Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

(2.) CHALLENGE herein is to the judgment and decree dated 28th May, 2001, passed by learned District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 69/95, on the grounds inter -alia that there being no iota of evidence to show that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') being tenant are in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 15 marlas in Khasra No. 2560 and 1 kanal 2 marlas in Khasra No. 2561/1 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) situated in village Khad, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. the suit could not have been decreed. Also that the State being recorded owner of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 2560, the suit could not have been maintained without impleading the State as party -defendant nor any decree in its absence could have been passed, keeping in view that the suit land having vested with the State under the provisions of H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred, the suit could not have been entertained. The findings that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as tenants without any proof qua the creation of tenancy or payment of rent are not only erroneous but perverse also.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellants, Shri Naresh Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has urged that learned lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit without there being any cogent and reliable evidence on record. The impugned judgment and decree, according to learned counsel being nullity and the findings recorded perverse and contrary to the record is not legally sustainable.