RAM MURTI Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 3.9.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 99 -K/XIII/1996 affirming the judgment, decree dated 31.7.1996 passed by the learned Sub Judge (1), Kangra in Civil Suit No. 37 of 1995/1988.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the appellants No. 5 to 10 and one Ramesh Chand, predecessor of appellants No. 1 to 4 had filed a suit for possession regarding land comprised in Khata No. 166 min, Khatauni No. 331, Khasra Nos. 1021, 1028 and 1029, Kittas 3, measuring 0 -17 -39 Hectares, vide jamabandi for the year 1983 -84 situate at Mouza Kachhiari, Tehsil and District Kangra. The pleaded case of the appellants was that they and their predecessor late Ramo Devi remained in cultivating possession of the suit land till the year, 1991. They had good relations with Diwan Chand, predecessor of respondents 1(a) to 1(d), who had been working as servant of late Ramo Devi and was cultivating the suit land on wages being servant of late Ramo Devi. He was never inducted as tenant on the suit land. Ramo Devi died in the year 1981 and after her death, Diwan Chand started claiming tenancy rights on the suit land. He encroached the suit land without the consent of appellants and their predecessors. Diwan Chand in collusion with revenue staff got his possession recorded as tenant and the revenue record showing Diwan Chand as tenant is wrong, illegal. The mutation of conferment of proprietary rights in favour of Diwan Chand is without authority, illegal, null and void and is liable to be ignored as Diwan Chand was never inducted as tenant on the suit land.

(3.) WHETHER the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as alleged? . OPD.