NATHU RAM Vs. ATAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure is being disposed of at the admission stage after giving full hearing to the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, as on the basis of substantial question of law as urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below do not deserve to be interfered with.

(2.) The Appellant and pro forma Respondent No. 3 in this appeal were the Defendants, whereas, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were the Plaintiffs in the Civil Suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. The suit of the Plaintiffs was decreed for recovery of suit property along with house built over it comprising of Khasra No. 123 measuring 4 biswas, situated in Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu by Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu exercising the powers of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Kullu on 27.8.1997. The appeal filed by Appellant-Defendant Nathu Ram against the decree and judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed by the District Judge, Kullu on 30.5.1998. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

(3.) It is not in dispute that in Jamabandis Ex. PB for the year 1948-49, Ex. PC for the year 1952-53, Ex. PD for the year 1956-57 and Ex. PE for the year 1960-61 the suit property is shown as Gair Mumkin Abadi in the ownership of Laxmi Dutt, Lekh Ram and Hari Chand, and in possession of Saran, son of Manglu as tenant on payment of Rs. 3/- as Lagan. In the latest Jamabandi Ex. PA-Ex. D-5 for the year 1986-87, all the entries continued to be as before except in the column of tenant wherein Smt. Maina Devi widow of Saran was recorded after the death of Saran. Both the courts below have concurrently relied upon these revenue entries to uphold the case of the Plaintiffs that after the death of Maina, who died issueless, the Plaintiffs became entitled to the possession of the suit property as its owners and the possession of the Appellant-Defendant is illegal and merely that of a trespasser having no right to induct the pro forma Respondent-Defendant as a tenant over a part of it and to demolish a portion of the house standing on it and threaten to demolish the remaining portion thereof.