NATHU RAM Vs. KALIAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1987, dated 12-4-1990. By means of impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court has held that Mangat Ram (hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1') is in unauthorised occupation of disputed khasra numbers and not as a tenant and the judgment and decree of the trial Court to that extent was set aside and the appeal was partly accented Nathu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff') and Avtar Chand (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 2') were held to be the owners of suit land but not in possession and the entries in the revenue record showing Defendant No. 1 to be tenant at will under both of them i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 are wrong and not binding upon them This judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been questioned in this appeal by the Plaintiff.

(2.) In the aforesaid background, the parties went to trial on the following issues:

(3.) In this case, from the materials on record one thing needs to be noticed at the very outset that the order of conferment of proprietary rights upon Defendant No. 1 in accordance with the provisions of the Act appears to have been questioned by the Plaintiff as well as Defendant No. 2 and by means of judgment dated 26-11-1986, Collector, Amb vide Ext. PB has set aside the order dated 29-12-1982 passed on mutation No. 3657 conferring proprietary rights in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 619 measuring 149 marlas and vide Ext. PC. order dated 26-11-1986 in the appeal filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 620 measuring 16 marlas has set aside the order of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade dated 29-12-1986 and in both the cases the matter was remanded back to the Court below. In the light of Exts. PB and PC which relate to land in suit passed by the competent authority under law, this Court has to examine the plea of Defendant No. 1 raised regarding his tenancy over the suit land It may be appropriate to mention here that nothing to the contrary has been brought on record by Defendant No. 1 to show as to how and in what circumstances the tenancy was created in his favour since Rabi 1976,