GOVIND RAM Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala camp at Una in civil Appeal No. 102/94/92 dated 21.6.1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) had filed a civil suit for declaration qua the land comprised in Khewat No. 5, Khatauni No. 42, Khasra No. 285 measuring 10 Kanals 11 Marlas, as entered in jamabandi for the year 1980 -81 is situated in village Teeka Bohru, Mauja Thara, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. During the pendency of civil suit the Consolidation, Operation and Settlement Operation had taken place. Consequently, new Khasra numbers were assigned to the old Khasra Numbers. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that they and proforma respondents had been coming in possession of the suit land previously as tenants and thereafter had become owners of the suit land after enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It was also averred that they had their abadi over the suit land. It was also pleaded that predecessor in interest of the appellants, Shri Bhagwan Singh in connivance with the revenue staff, managed to get his name incorporated in the column of cultivation since, 1980. According to plaintiffs, these entries were wrong, illegal, baseless, in -operative and had no effect over the rights, title or interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant Shri Bhagwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenient sake). It was averred in the written statement that neither the plaintiffs nor proforma respondents or their ancestors were ever inducted as tenants over the suit land and they or their predecessor -in -interest never remained in possession of the suit land. They had constructed their abadi over the suit land. The proforma respondents/defendants had also filed separate written statements. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 11.11.1992. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, camp at Una. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal on 21.6.1997. The defendant Shri Bhagwan Singh filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharmashala, camp at Una dated 21.6.1997. He died during the pendency of this regular second appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 19.7.2001. The regular second appeal was admitted on 12.8.1997 on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) MR . Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is not sustainable. In other words, he has prayed for the restoration of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 11.11.1992. He has strenuously argued that the first appellate Court had not correctly appreciated Ex.DW -6/A while allowing the appeal. He has also urged that the plaintiffs had relinquished/abandoned their tenancy rights. Shri Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 4 and Shri Sanjeev Bhushan appearing for respondents No. 18 to 20 have supported the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 21.6.1997.