(1.) THE instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first appellate Court whereby the learned first appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the suit land bearing khasra Nos. 3040, 3041, 3042, 3043, measuring 0 -42 -44, hectares, as per Missal Hakiat Bandobast for the year 1987 -88, situated in Village Jankaur, Tehsil and District Una, H.P., was in possession of their predecessor -in -interest Geeta Ram alias Geetu as non occupancy tenant on payment of rent under the owners for a long time and on the death of said Geeta Ram, the plaintiffs and their brother Chhottu defendant No. 3, succeeded to his tenancy rights and they have become owners thereof by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. During the settlement record prepared in 1987 -88, defendant No. 1 Sagli Ram was recorded as 'patedar without any basis, against the factual position as the possession over the suit land was earlier of their father Geeta Ram and thereafter, with the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. It is further averred that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 were illegally got recorded as Kabiz over the suit land under the 'patedar' defendant No. 1 Sagli Ram. On the basis of said wrong revenue entry, the defendant No. 1 has been threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land, as such, the plaintiffs filed the suit for grating them as a decree for declaration to the effect that they and proforma defendant No. 3 Chhottu Ram are in possession of the suit land earlier as non -occupancy tenants and now as owners after the conferment of proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title or interest in the land and the alleged entry showing defendant No. 1 in the revenue record as 'Patedar' is wrong, illegal, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and also the entry showing the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 as Kabizan is also illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in the suit land in any manner. In the alternative a decree for possession has been prayed that in case defendants No. 1 and 2 succeeded in taking forcible possession form the plaintiff.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re -affirmed and re -asserted the averments made in the plaint.