AMAR CHAND Vs. THAKRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Amar Chand is aggrieved by the order dated 20th November, 1997 of learned District Judge, Una, whereby an order under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb has been set aside and the case has been remanded to that Court, for deciding the same on merits.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Thakri Devi Respondent, hereinafter called the Plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of certain land and that the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1978 -79, showing the Appellant, hereinafter called the Defendant, as tenant are wrong and mutation No. 3897 conferring the proprietory rights of the said land upon the Defendant, on the basis of the aforesaid entries in the jamabandi for the year 1978 -79, is also wrong, illegal and void. It was alleged that initially, Fakir Chand, the husband of the Plaintiff was in occupation of the suit land as a tenant at will. It was further alleged that after the coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Fakir Chand became the owner of the land, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(4) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Said Fakir Chand died in 1982. It was alleged that on the death of Fakir Chand, Plaintiff -Respondent became the owner of the suit land. Further allegation of the Plaintiff was that the Appellant - Defendant, in connivance with the revenue staff, had procured a bogus entry in the jamabandi for the year 1978 -79, showing him in occupation of the suit land as tenant at will and on the basis of that entry, the revenue agency entered and attested mutation No. 3897, conferring the proprietory rights upon him. Change of entry in the Jamabandi, for the years 1978 - 89 and subsequent attestation of mutation, were alleged to be illegal, void, contrary to the factual position prevailing on the spot and hence, not binding upon the Plaintiff -Respondent.

(3.) APPEAL preferred against the said finding by the Plaintiff has been accepted by the District Judge and it has been held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction in the matter. Consequently the case has been remanded to the trial Court with the direction to decide the same on merits. It is this order of the learned District Judge, which has been assailed in the present appeal.