PARTAP SINGH AND ORS. Vs. BIDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the appeals are directed against common judgment and decree dated 8.4.2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeals No. 46, 47, 60 and 89 of 2004, hence, same were taken up together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

(2.) Civil Suit No. 397/1996 titled as Bidhi Chand versus Partap Singh and another was filed by the respondent (Bidhi Chand)(hereinafter referred to as 'respondent' for convenience sake) and Civil Suit No. 164/1996 titled as Partap Singh and another versus Bidhi Singh was filed by the appellants (Partap Singh and Amar Singh) (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants' for convenience sake). Civil Suit No. 164/1996 has been filed by Partap Singh and another against Bidhi Singh and Civil Suit No. 397/1996, has been filed by Bidhi Chand against Partap Singh and another. Bidhi Chand and Bidhi Singh refer to one and same person, Respondent (Bidhi Chand) filed civil suit bearing No. 397/1996 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant (Partap Singh and another) from interfering in any manner whatsoever and from changing nature of suit land themselves or through their family members, agents or servants. Further it is prayed that if during the pendency of the suit, appellants succeed in taking forcible possession of the suit land, decree for possession or any other relief which may be deemed fit was also prayed for. According to the respondent (Bidhi Chand) he was absolute owner -in -possession of the suit land and entries showing names of the appellants in the column of cultivation are illegal, wrongful and fictitious as the land was Kharetar. The land was never possessed by the appellants. Appellants got themselves wrongly reflected in the column of cultivation against Galla Batai in connivance with the revenue officials. Revenue authorities did not follow due procedure laid down in the Act for correction of entries. Land being Kharetar could not be entered in the name of appellants. Appellants were head strong persons and bent upon taking forcible possession of the land. Cause of action arose in the first week of November, 1996.

(3.) Suit was contested by the appellants. According to the appellants, they were tenants over the suit land from the time immemorial and after coming into force of the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, they have become owners of the suit land. Respondent was a stranger to the suit land.