KARTARI DEVI Vs. UDHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioners-defendants have assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Una. dated 25-111994 in C.M. Application No. 203/94 passed in Court Appeal No .3/1992, R.B T. No. 228/93. The learned Court below rejected the application under Order 6, Rule 1 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement with the alternative plea regarding adverse possession.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that land comprising of Khasra Nos. 1095 and 1113 was owned by Lachhman Dass but in possession of Meghoo qua 2/3rd share and Dehru alias Piara for the remaining share as tenants-at-will. Both of them died before coming into force of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975 and, therefore, the tenancy of Meghoo was inherited by Udham Singh, plaintiff and Prem Singh in equal shares, Dehru succeeded by his sons Gurbachan Singh and Puran Singh, defendants. They claimed that proprietary rights were conferred upon them, but in the revenue record Prem Singh was shown as tenant, and thereafter, as owner of 1/3rd share in the suit land. Plaintiff (respondent No. 1 ) filed a suit for declaration that Prem Singh was not the son of Meghoo and therefore, he could not succeed tenancy rights in equal share of the plaintiff. Therefore entries in the revenue record showing Prem Singha owner of 1/3rd share were incorrect. It was further alleged that he was in possession of the whole 2/3rd share of Meghoo in the suit land firstly as tenant, then as an owner on coming into force of the H. P. tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975. On these facts he prayed for issuance of permanent injunction.

(3.) In the written statement it was not disputed that the plaintiff was son of Meghoo, but pleaded that Prem Singh was adopted, treated and brought up as on of Meghoo and, therefore, after his death Prem Singh succeeded to the tenancy rights of Meghoo along with the plaintiff in equal shares and thereafter he obtained the proprietary rights.