ZULFI RAM Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2000 dated 6.5.2004, vide which learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by appellant/defendant, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 32/92 dated 29.8.2002 whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff for possession of suit land by holding entries qua suit land existing in favour of defendant No.3 as 'tenant-at-will' in the column of cultivation and in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in the column of ownership as owners is wrong, null and void and further passed decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff over the suit land.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that a suit was filed by plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff had been in possession as tenant-at-will and subsequently had become owner with the coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Rules framed there under and defendants had no right, title or interest over the suit land and entries over suit land in favour of defendant No.3 as tenant-at-will in the column of cultivation and entries qua suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in column of ownership as owners were wrong, null and void, unauthorized, illegal without any basis and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, and also for issuance of permanent injunction by way of consequential relief restraining defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land and further for restraining them from taking forcible possession of suit land and in the alternative decree for possession in favour of plaintiff. As per plaintiff Fannu son of Gagar, father of plaintiff, was in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 41(1-14), 56(4-3), total measuring 5 kanals 17 marals comprised in khewat No. 32min, khatauni No. 81min as tenant-at-will on payment of rent since long and after his death, plaintiff succeeded tenancy of the said land. Neither he nor his father abandoned or relinquished tenancy over the same and they were never ejected from the said land. Further as per plaintiff consolidation took place in the village and suit land was allotted to plaintiff in lieu of land comprised in khasra No. 41(1-14), 56(4 -3), total measuring 5 kanals 17 marals comprised in khewat No. 32min, khatauni No. 81min as per jamabandi for the year 1968-69 situated in village Rajli Baniala, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una and defendant No.3 who was a clever person in connivance with Patwari Halqua and revenue staff got changed the entries of the suit land in his favour as tenant-at-will unauthorizedly and such entries existing in favour of defendant No.3 reflecting him as tenant-at-will in the column of possession were wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was further the case of plaintiff that he had become owner in possession of suit land by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Rules framed there under and defendants No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest over the suit land and entries existing in their favour reflecting them as owners were having no binding effect on the rights of plaintiff. It was also stated in the plaint that defendants had never entered into possession of the suit land and emboldened by wrong revenue entries which was existed in their favour were threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit land. It was on these bases suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendants No.2 and 3 filed their separate written statement. Defendant No.2 in his written statement denied the claim of plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff was never inducted as tenant over the suit land and he never occupied the same as such and entries if any in revenue record in favour of plaintiff were wrong, incorrect to the factual position at the spot. It was also mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff was never admitted or accepted as a tenant nor he paid any rent.