RAM RAKHA Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Respondents Bharat Singh, Jamiat Singh, Manohar Lal and Tara Chand, filed a suit for declaration that they alongwith proforma respondents Joginder Singh and Sheela Devi, were joint owners in possession of certain property described in the plaint, alleging that earlier their father Shankar was in possession of the suit land as a sub-tenant and that on his death, they came in possession and had been cultivating the land continuously. It was alleged that in the year 1989, appellant Ram Rakha made an application to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Haroli, seeking correction of the entries in the revenue papers with respect to the suit land. It was further alleged that in the said application Shankar, the father of the plaintiffs, who had died in the year 1971 was impleaded as respondent and that he being dead, there could not have been any question of his being served or appearing before the Assistant Collector and that finally an ex-parte order was passed by the Assistant Collector for correction of entries showing the appellant, Ram Rakha, as tenant in possession of the suit land and that such order was passed without making any inquiry nor was there any other material before the Assistant Collector, supporting the claim of the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant. He claimed that initially one Nagina was in possession of the suit land as a tenant under the owners and that on the death of said Nagina sometime in the year 1959, he (appellant Ram Rakha) was inducted as a tenant by the owners and ever since he had been in possession of the suit land. He claimed that by virtue of the provision of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he had acquired ownership rights. He admitted having filed a petition for correction of entries before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. He stated that notice was sent to Shankar, but it was returned with the report that no person by the name of Shankar resided in the village in which the land was situated and therefore, a proclamation was also got published and the residents of the village were also informed about the making of the application by him by means of beat of drum, but nobody appeared before the Assistant Collector to oppose his prayer for correction of entries. A couple of preliminary objections were also raised. Trial court framed the issues based on the pleadings of the parties and thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties and at the end of the trial, it was held that the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade was illegal and void and did not bind the plaintiffs- respondents, having been passed behind their back without serving them and also no inquiry having been made regarding the claim of the defendant- appellant that he was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of a tenant even though the trial court did say that the appellant was a tenant and that respondents- plaintiffs were sub-tenants under him. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Appeal was filed by the defendant- appellant in the court of District Judge. The same stands dismissed. Finding of the trial court has been affirmed.

(3.) AS regards the first contention, admittedly one Nagina was initially a tenant on the suit land, per jamabandi for the year 1955-56, copy Ex. D-4. After his death, the name of appellant- defendant Ram Rakha was recorded as a tenant on payment of land revenue and name of Shankar, the predecessor of the plaintiffs was recorded as sub-tenant on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.6/- per annum.