NETAR SINGH Vs. RAM DITTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate court, whereby it reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the land comprised in Khewat No.110 min, khatauni No. 156, Khasra Nos.79,83,99,101, 106, 107 and 110, kitta 7, measuring 1-14-16 bighas, was recorded in the ownership of the State of HP, but in possession of plaintiff No.2 as tenant at Will under the defendantappellant, whereas land comprising in Khewat No 110min, khatauni No.157, khasra Nos. 88, 90 and 92, Kittas 3, measuring 2-1-3 bighas, situated in mauza Dudar/345 was again recorded in the ownership of the State of HP, but was in possession of plaintiff No.1 as tenant at Will under the appellant and similarly the land comprised in Khewat No.110min, khatauni No.158, khasra Nos, 91, 102 and 104, Kittas 3 measuring 1-10-16 bighas situated in mauja Dudar/345 was also recorded in the ownership of the State of HP but was in possession of the plaintiffs in equal share as tenant at Will under the appellant. It was averred that plaintiffs had been coming in possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years as tenant at Will and has also been paying rent regularly, but since 1.2.1992, defendant started interfering in the suit land in order to dispossess the plaintiffs, constraining them to file the suit.

(3.) The defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action and maintainability were raised. On merits, it was averred that plaintiffs have been recorded as 'Kabze Nazayaz Dom' under the defendant and this entry was wrong and incorrect. It is the defendant who is in actual and physical possession of the suit land for the last more than 70 years, that too from the time of his forefathers. It was further averred that the defendant had never inducted the plaintiffs as tenants nor they ever remained in possession of the suit land and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit with special cost.