RAMESH CHANDER Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order (labeled as judgment) dated 21.1.1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, whereby an appeal filed by the Respondents against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1987 of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una has been accepted with the finding that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction in the matter and the plaint has been ordered to be returned.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. Daulat Ram (deceased) Respondent (hereinafter called "the Plaintiff") filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of certain property and that the entries showing the Appellants, who were impleaded as Defendants, as tenants in the revenue papers were wrong, illegal and contrary to the factual position prevailing on the spot. It was alleged that on the strength of the aforesaid wrong entries, the Defendants, procured an order of mutation from a Settlement Officer conferring the rights of ownership upon them purportedly under the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The said order was alleged to have been passed behind the back of the Plaintiff and without issuing any notice to him. It was also alleged that earlier in the year 1987 the Defendants had filed a suit seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Plaintiff, restraining him from causing any interference in the suit land and that that suit had been withdrawn and so the order of dismissal passed in that suit declining the prayer of the Defendants, which was sought on the ground that the Defendants were in possession of the suit land, was binding on them and the said order impliedly meant that the Defendants were out of possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Defendants on merits. Some preliminary objections were also raised. It was alleged that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction as the adjudication of the question whether a given person was a tenant or not, fell within the domain of the authorities constituted for the purpose of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.