LUCKEY KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. RUPA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999/RBT No. 76/04, vide which learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 381 of 1994 dated 18.09.1999, but also held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were able to prove their respective claims on record.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 28.11.2007:

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit to the effect that Santa, S/o Sidhu and Surbhan, widow of Makoda were non-occupancy tenants to half share of the suit land, whereas remaining half share was in the tenancy of Gopala, Gobind and Rohli, sons of Nikku as per Jamabandi consolidation 1962- 63 of village concerned. Subsequently, a clerical mistake crept in the revenue records and name of Naulu, son of Tahu also figured as nonoccupancy tenant, though this Naulu was never a tenant over the suit land. As per the plaintiff, his name appeared without any legal valid order by any competent authority and these entries in revenue records showing Naulu and his legal heirs, i.e. defendants as non-occupancy tenants and subsequently as owners of the suit land were incorrect, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree of declaration was sought to the effect that revenue entries showing defendants initially as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and subsequently as owners of the same were incorrect and not binding on the plaintiff. It was further prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering over the suit land in any manner whatsoever.