PREMU AND ORS. Vs. KRISHNU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Hamirpur, H.P., dated 19.4.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1999/109 of 2004.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellants -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they were tenants over the land measuring 43 kanals out of the land comprised in Khata No. 46, Khtoni No. 53, 54, Khasra Nos. 382 min, 382 min plots 2 measuring 111 kanals 12 marlas, situated in Tika Tilla, Mouza Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1989 -90 and in the alternative decree for possession. According to the plaintiffs, one Sh. Nihalu son of Bhajnu grandfather of the plaintiffs was tenant at will on payment of rent under the predecessor -in -interest of the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 11 min, Khatoni No. 22, Khasra Nos. 230 min, measuring 57 kanals, 13 marlas, situated in Tika Tilla, Mouza Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1915 -16. The plaintiffs are successors -in -interest of late Nihalu son of Bhajnu. It was further averred that even later on late Sh. Nihalu, grandfather of the plaintiffs was shown as a tenant on payment of rent under the ancestors of defendants, namely, Shankar etc. as per jamabandi for the year 1923 -24. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit titled as Santu versus Dharmu regarding 14 kanals 13 marlas. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land now remains only 43 kanals 13 marlas. The suit was decided by the learned Sub Judge, Hamirpur on 7.11.1978. The appeal was decided by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur on 5.5.1982 and the Regular Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1982 was decided alongwith the Cross Objections on 20.8.1992 vide Ext. DA. The defendants in collusion with the revenue staff got reduced the tenancy land and only 18 kanals 13 marlas of land in suit was shown under the tenancy of ancestors of the plaintiffs though the plaintiffs and their ancestors continued to cultivate the same as tenants on payment of rent and the reduction of area under the tenancy of the plaintiffs and their ancestors from 57 kanals 13 marlas to 18 kanals 13 marlas was illegal, null and void. It is further averred that again in 1951 -52, the area under the tenancy of ancestors of plaintiffs was reduced to 14 kanals 13 marlas without any lawful order from any authority.

(3.) THE learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the suit on 16.8.1999. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dismissed the same on 19.4.2005. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.