PRITA Vs. BALDEV SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the concurrent decrees passed by the learned courts below, has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Relevant facts are that the plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') filed suit for declaration to the effect they have been coming in physical cultivation and possession of the suit land as non occupancy tenants and now have become owners by virtue of coming into force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (the 'Tenancy Act' for short) and the Rules, 1972. Suit land is stated to be measuring 13 kanal 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No.176 min, Khatauni No.2806 min, bearing new Khasra Nos.4387, 4389, 4388 and old Khasra Nos. 4060 to 4063 as entered in Misal Hakiat Ishtemal for the year 1989-90, situate in Village Kungrat Majra Chhetran, Tehsil and District Una ( the 'suit land' for short). It was averred that entries in the column of cultivation showing the name of defendant No.1 Prita as 'Gar Mourusi' are wrong, null and void and further the mutation No.8713 dated 22.12.1990, conferring proprietary rights under the Act in favour of defendant No.1 are also illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is averred that in June, 1984, predecessors of defendants 2 to 21, who were Khatri by caste were not ploughing the suit land and had inducted Mohna son of Hako, father of the plaintiffs as tenant-at-will on payment of rent over 13 kanal 12 marlas of land which area was decreased in re-partition proceedings during the consolidation operation to 13 kanal 4 marlas. Predecessors of the plaintiffs reclaimed that land and brought it under cultivation. After the death of Mohna, plaintiffs succeeded to the tenancy rights being the sons of Mohna.

(3.) Suit was resisted and contested by the defendant No.1 only and other defendants did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex parte. As regard defendant No.1, he, in his written statement, took preliminary objection, inter alia of jurisdiction, locus standi, maintainability, plaintiff being out of possession and approaching the court with unclean hands, limitation, estoppel and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was specifically denied that the plaintiffs or their predecessor were in possession of the suit land as tenants at any point of time and even the entry of tenancy in favour of Mohna, father of plaintiffs, was claimed to be wrong and false and a stray entry which had resulted out of manipulation. It was also alleged that the mutation of proprietary rights had been rightly sanctioned in favour of answering defendant. It is further claimed that the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by Settlement Tehsildar-cum- AC Grade-I, Una pertaining to mutation No.8713 was legal as defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit land as owner thereof.