JETHU THROUGH KM.GUDDI Vs. GOBIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present appeal was admitted on the following question of law : "Whether there has been gross mis -reading and mis -appreciation of oral and documentary evidence for holding that the defendants -appellant were not in possession as tenants of the suit land and further that they had not become owners by virtue of the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Shri Gobind Singh -plaintiff -respoudcnt became the owner of the suit land measuring 6 -10 0 Bighas, as described in the plaint, on the basis of exchange from the owners in the year 1975 According to the plaintiff, when by way of exchange he became owner of the suit land at that time the land was lying Banjar and he got the possession of the same and made the said land cultivable one. It was pleaded by him that the defendants were not in possession of the suit land However, according to him, as per entries in the revenue records the defendants -appellant have been recorded as tenants of the suit land under the owner and after the exchange under him and these entries were assailed to be wrong and incorrect. The plaintiff moved an application for correction of revenue entries before the revenue authorities which application was allowed but on appeal it was remanded back and after remand the application had been dismissed. The plaintiff, thus, filed the present suit before the trial Court that he was in possession of the suit land as owner and the defendants have been wrongly recorded as tenants over the suit land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants on account of wrong entries, were threatening to oust him from the suit land, hence he preferred a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and as a consequential relief he asked for permanent injunction,

(2.) The defendants, who happened to be recorded as tenants on payment of rent over the suit land, contested the suit and very specifically pleaded that they were in occupation of the suit land as tenants and by operation of law they have become owner of the same. Parties were put to trial on the following Issues by the trial Courts:

(3.) The aforesaid judgment and decree were assailed in an appeal before the first appellate Court on various pleas and the first appellate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,