SHRI BISHO Vs. SHRI PRABHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1989 passed by Appellate Court (Addl. District Judge- II Kangra at Dharamshala) in Civil Appeal No.3 of 1987.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction. Appellant claimed that he is a tenant in cultivating possession of the land measuring 0-39- 74 hectares, kila 23, situate in Mohal Dain, Tehsil Palampur as entered in Naqual Misal Haquiat Bandobast and is entitled to continue as such tenant of the suit land for future and the defendants have no right or concern over the suit land or to interfere in his peaceful possession and by issuance of permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in future in any manner whatsoever. It was further pleaded by the appellant that he is tenant at will of the land in suit since times immemorial and he was paying rent to the owners. According to the appellant, the defendants being strong persons are trying to interfere with his possession and to be precise on 27.1.1984 when he was cultivating the land suit, the defendants formed a party and threatened him with dire consequences and further directed him not to sow crop in the land in question. Appellant further pleaded that the defendants are continuously threatening and they further held out that they would harvest the wheat crop sown by him. Again on 9.2.1984 they tried to cultivate the suit land without any reasonable cause. This suit was contested and resisted by the defendant who amongst other things denied the factum of tenancy being there in favour of the appellant. Defendants further pleaded that the revenue entries are mere paper entries and appellant was never in possession of the suit land nor he was ever inducted as tenant as claimed by him. Defendants also pleaded that the land was under mortgage alongwith other land after it had been redeemed, they were put in cultivating possession of the same in execution of the decree for redemption and they continue to be the owners in possession of the suit land.

(3.) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the parties went to trial on the following issues :