PHUYIAN(DECEASED) Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellants against the judgment and decree dtd. 13/7/2001, passed by the learned Additional Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes.

(2.) The dispute in the present case is with regard to the land comprised in Khewat/ Khatauni No.39/66 Khasra No.837 (old Khasra No.510/329 min), 849 (old Khasra No.568/336 min), 850 (old Khasra No.568/336 min.), 852 (old Khasra No.568/336 min) and 854 (old Khasra No.510/329) min, kita 5, measuring 2044 sq.mtrs (2 bighas 09 biswas) situated in Mauza, Salihari (Sapar) Pargana Bagri-Khurd, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It has been alleged that said Puran Chand had expired on 13/12/1997 and after his sad demise, the plaintiff Krishan Kumar(since deceased) (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant) was owner in possession of the suit land after the death of his father Puran Chand. It has also been alleged that the defendants (hereinafter to be referred as the appellants) and their deceased father Mathu Ram have or had any concerned over the suit land after 10/4/1976. It has . also been averred that earlier various civil suits were filed by the deceased Mathu Ram with regard to the suit land against the deceased Puran Chand, which were dismissed by the Court since long ago. It has been alleged that deceased Mathu Ram in connivance with the settlement staff got the revenue entries of the suit land, qua possession in his favour, which entries are illegal, void and against the factual position existing on the spot.

(3.) It has been alleged that the suit was contested by all the defendants(appellants), except defendant No.3 and they also filed written statement. They pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land since time immemorial and are cultivating the same peacefully and without any interruption and interference from any side and pleaded that Mathu Ram (deceased) was inducted, as tenant, by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents and after passing of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the father of the defendants became owner-in-possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue record have rightly been changed by the revenue staff after due enquiry and verification.