HARI SINGH Vs. CHAINO AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, in Civil Appeal No.25/2005/2004, dated 29.4.2005, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dalhousie, District Chamba, in Civil Suit No.86 of 2001, dated 16.3.2004.

(2.) Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') maintained a suit for declaration, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') alleging that suit land bearing Khasra No.189, Khata/Khatauni No.4/6, measuring 3-3 bighas, situated in Mauza Bhotan, Pargana Chuhan, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, (H.P.) (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') is owned by the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2, as he has inherited the suit land from his father late Shri Kesru, who expired in the year 1956, when the plaintiff was one and half year old. As per the plaintiff, one Hoshiara and proforma defendant No.2, co-sharers used to cultivate the suit land, after the death of father of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff joined Military services in April, 1974, when he was 19 ½ years old and remained in Military services upto 31st May, 2000, during this period, the suit land was being cultivated by his wife with the assistance of proforma defendant No.3 Khanno. The plaintiff gave four biswas of land, out of the suit land to defendant No.3, for construction of house in the year 1978, who constructed the house in the year 1979 and since then he is residing there and the entire suit land has been coming in possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. After retirement, the plaintiff came to know from the Patwari concerned that the suit land has been recorded in the name of Tejo, as tenant. The plaintiff requested to the defendant-Tejo, to get the entry deleted, as he was never in possession of the suit land, but he refused to do so. The plaintiff and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit property and Teju was never a tenant under the plaintiff. Further, the revenue entries showing defendant No.1, in the column of cultivation, as non occupancy tenant are illegal and the plaintiff is not bound by the same, as deceased Tejo was never inducted as tenant over the suit land by him and proforma defendants.

(3.) Defendant No.1-Tejo, contested and resisted the suit by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, valuation and limitation and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court, as earlier he had maintained an application for correction of the revenue entries before the learned Assistant Collector, Dalhousie, which was dismissed as withdrawn. On merits, defendant claimed that he has been coming in continuous possession and cultivating the suit land for the last more than 40 years, as non occupancy tenant and the plaintiff is shown, as owner of the suit land only in the entries of jamabandi for the year 1996-1997, but it is not shown as to how he has acquired the proprietary rights qua the suit land.