LAL CHAND Vs. PALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Lai Chand appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 (predecessors of appellants No. 2 to 11) were in possession, as tenants -at - will, of the land measuring 66 Kanals 12 Marias as described in the plaint and had been entered, as such, in the record of rights for the year 1963 - 64. Further declaration sought was that the entry regarding land measuring 5 Kanals 0 Marias, out of land measuring 33 Kanals 1 Mark comprised of Khasre No. 2650 min and land measuring 2 Kanals 0 Maria, oat of land measuring 22 Kanals 11 Marias comprised of Khasra No. 2695/1, in the revenue records in the name of defendant No. 1 from 1979 as tenant -at - will was wrong, incorrect, void and contrary to law and has been made in -connivance with the Patwari Halquaillegally, at the back of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3. As a consequential relief permanent injunction had been prayed for in order to restrain defendant No. 1 from interfering, in any manner, and taking forcible possession of the suit land. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed for possession of the suit land.

(2.) Plaintiffs case, as reflected from the averments made in the plaint, had been that the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 are in possession as tenants -at -will of the land measuring 66 Kanals 12 Marias, as described in the heading of the plaint. Defendant No. I, that is, Pala respondent, was alleged to be very clever and head strong person. Accordingly to the plaintiff, this defendant No. 1 never entered into possession of the suit land nor the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were ever ejected or had relinquished the possession of the suit land but mis defendant No.l in connivance with Patwari Halqua got incorporated a wrong entry in Kharif 1979 in his name in the revenue record to the extent of 5 Kanals 0 Maria out of the land measuring 33 Kanals 1 Maria comprised of Khasra No. 2650 min and to the extent of 2 Kanals 0 Maria out of land measuring 33 Kanals 11 Marias, comprised of Khasra No. 2695/1 min illegally and behind the back of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. It was also averred that the plaintiff came to know about mis wrong entry only a month back prior to the filing of the suit According to the plaintiff, Pala defendant No. 1, was asked to admit the tenancy rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 and not to interfere and try to take forcible possession of the suit land but he refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff, hence the suit for declaration and injunction was preferred.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and took preliminary objections that the suit in the present form was not maintainable as the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 were out of possession of the land in dispute; that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties; and .that the suit was not within time. On merit, the case of mis contesting defendant had been that father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 died about 40 years back and thereafter the owners inducted defendant No. 1 as tenant - at - will and the Abadi of the answering defendant also existed therein for the last more than 30 years. It was tardier pleaded mat Prem Singh, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3, was not in possession of the suit land which was Banjar and not capable of physical possession. According to the defendant, he has reclaimed the land to the extent of about 2 Ghumaoon and brought it under cultivation and he was in actual cultivation of the suit land. According to him the entries were rightly corrected in the name of the answering defendant after proper enquiry. The other averments were not admitted.