KARTARA Vs. SINNO DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Una, District Una, H.P., reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000, passed by learned Sub Judge Court No.II, Una, in Civil Suit No.215/1990.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as emerged from the plaint, are that the appellant-plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 2 kanal 10 marlas bearing khewat No.929, 480 min, khatauni No.851, 789, bearing khasra Nos. 3198(7511/3208 old), 3203 (9206/3207 old), situated in village Haroli, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, District Una, HP., as per Missal Hakiat for the year, 1986-87 is in possession of the plaintiff as tenant under the owners on payment of rent since the time of his ancestors and the entry changed in favour of defendants showing them as tenants over the suit land are illegal, unauthorized, null and void and without any order of competent authority and have no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiff with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is in possession of the suit land as tenant on payment of rent since the time of his ancestors and he never surrendered the possession of the suit land. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he came in possession over khasra No. 3188, 3190 alongwith the suit land and he became owner of the land by operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Khasra Nos., 3191, 3202 is also in his tenancy alongwith the suit land. Plaintiff further averred that he or his predecessor were never dispossessed or evicted by the competent Authority from the suit land and the defendants never came in possession over the suit land and the alleged entry changed during the consolidation in the year, 1986-87 is without any basis, null and void and have been procured behind the back of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further averred that the defendants were never inducted as tenants over the suit land either by the plaintiff or anybody else and the plaintiff never relinquished the tenancy rights over the suit land. Plaintiff also averred that the defendants are very headstrong persons and on the basis of wrong entry of their names in revenue record have now started illegal threats of interference and changing the nature of the suit land by raising construction over the same and also dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land for the last one week. The plaintiff requested the defendants many times to desist from their illegal acts and to admit the claim of the plaintiff, but they are evading from the same.

(3.) Defendants by way of filing written statement raised various preliminary objections qua locus-standi, cause of action, suit bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and maintainability. On merits, defendants averred that the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest was neither inducted as tenant nor he is in possession of the suit land in any capacity and has no concern with the same. Defendants averred that defendants No.1 and 2 are in physical possession over the suit land as tenant at will under the owners for the last more than 25 year and they are having their abadi over the suit land in the shape of shops and part of the suit land bearing khasra No. 3203 is under H.P.PWD Road. Defendants further averred that the plaintiff and his predecessor were never in possession of the suit land in any capacity, so question of dis-possessing or their eviction does not arise. However, the entries in the name of the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest as tenant-at-will were wrong, illegal, unauthorized and against the factual possession at the spot, which were duly corrected by the Revenue agency after due verification of the suit land as per the spot situation. Defendants further averred that the plaintiff has no right, title or any interest, whatsoever, over the suit land. In the aforesaid background, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.