KALA DEVI Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri G. R, Sharma, Additional District Judge, Mandi dated of the 8 -2 -1989, whereby the Judgment and decree of the Court of Shri L R, Sharma, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi dated 12 -3 -1987 was reversed and the suit of plaintiff -respondent has been decreed. It may be mentioned here that the suit had been dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) The facts, as pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent, are that Mohanti Devi and Ram Das were residents of village Narola lllaqa Hatli, Tehsil Sarkaghat. They were owners of the suit land, fully described in the plaint and as also in the judgments of the Courts below. It was further pleaded that the defendant appellant Kanshi Ram, being brother -in -law of Ram Das was inducted by the latter as tenant of the suit land to the extent of l/3rd share. He was inducted as tenant on the land, which fell in the share of Mahanti Devi He came to be recorded as non -occupancy tenant qua the share of Mahanti Devi but in face he was never inducted by Mahanti Devi as a tenant of her share. The latter, during her life time executed a will in respect of her property in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. Thereafter, the defendant -appellant started taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record regarding the share of Mahanti Devi in the suit land. He tried to acquire the proprietary rights qua the share of Mahanti Devi in the land. Lastly it was pleaded that the entry in the revenue record qua her share in favour of the defendant -appellant is erroneous and liable to be corrected.

(3.) In the written statement, the suit we resisted by pleading that the entries in the revenue record are correct and the land continued to be in possession of the defendant -appellant as non -occupancy tenant, he having been inducted as such by Mahanti Devi and Ram Das During her life time, Mahanti Devi never disputed the entry in the revenue record. The defendant -appellant acquired ownership rights qua tha share of Ram Das. He could not do so regarding the share of Mahanti Devi under the H P, Tenancy and Land Reforms Act because she was a widow She was never in possession of her share because she had inducted him as a tenant it may be mentioned here that Kanshi Ram, defendant -appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and his L Rs have been brought on record.