RAMESH KUMAR Vs. MANDIR THOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiffs Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below dismissing their suit claiming a decree of declaration that they had become tenants of the defendant, consequential relief of injunction and a declaration that they be declared as owners in possession of the land under their purported tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs approached the learned trial Court on the allegations that the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs had been settled on the land as tenants by Mahant Akhanda Nand Giri Shri Shri 1008 on payment of half the share of crop as six monthly rent. The plaintiffs alleged that since the defendants had been receiving this crop as "Galla Batai" which was the consideration on rent, therefore, they were entitled to a declaration of tenancy.

(3.) THE plaintiffs appealed to the learned District Judge who formulated two points, namely whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case and secondly whether the findings of the trial Court on issues 1 and 6 dealing with the tenancy were correct? The learned District Judge rightly did not give any finding on the second aspect of the matter holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiffs have appealed against this judgment. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.