OM PARKASH Vs. BIDHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Respondents- plaintiffs filed a suit, claiming that they are owners in possession of certain property described in the plaint. They alleged that initially respondent-plaintiff Bidhia was in possession of the suit land as tenant under the original owners, who are the members of royal family of Amb, and on coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act he became the owner and thereafter he transferred a portion of the suit land in favour of second respondent Charan Dass who is his (Bidhia's) son. It was alleged that the present appellant- defendant, being the son of a person, who was a Minister in the State Government at the relevant time, using his clout got the name of respondent Bidhia removed from the revenue papers in the capacity of a tenant and got his own name incorporated as tenant and on the strength of that entry mutation conferring the proprietary rights was also sanctioned in his favour. The respondents claimed that they were never dispossessed and continued to be in possession, despite the aforesaid alleged illegal order of correction of entries and mutation order, conferring the rights upon the appellant-defendant. So, they sought declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land.

(2.) APPELLANT -defendant in his written statement denied that the respondents-plaintiffs were owners or even in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the original owners. Further, it was alleged that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged.

(3.) APPELLANT -defendant has come in appeal to this Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant states that the name of the appellant-defendant appeared in the revenue papers showing him as tenant, pursuant to an order passed by the Tehsildar on 16.7.1981, as is clear from Ex. R-1, copy of entry in the Roznamcha, but that order having not been challenged by the respondents-plaintiffs, no relief could have been granted to them. His further contention is that after the name of the appellant-defendant appeared in the revenue papers as a tenant. He has further submitted that the suit having not been filed within one year of the attestation of the mutation, the same was barred by limitation. His further contention is that there is unchallenged testimony of the appellant- defendant in the form of his affidavit that respondents-plaintiffs were present at the time when the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights was attested in his favour, and despite the order of mutation having been attested in the presence of the plaintiffs, the same had not been challenged and, hence, the suit was not maintainable.