HARI SINGH Vs. MILAP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants are the Defendants whereas the Respondent is the Plaintiff and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The Defendants have filed this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 31.7.1997 passed by Add). District-Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the appeal of the Defendants was partly accepted and the decree and judgment dated 16.8.1996 of Sub Judge Ist Class (I), Palampur District Kangra is modified to the extent that the Plaintiff is declared the owner of 1/2 share of the suit land and thereby held entitled to joint possession of the suit land alongwith Defendants. Sub-Judge 1.1 Class had decreed the suit for possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The suit land is comprised of Khasras No. 125, 191, 194 and 269 Kita 4 measuring 0-79-84 hectares, situated in Mohal Kanjrahar, Mauja Deol, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that father of the Plaintiff and grand-father of Defendants, namely, Chamaru was the tenant of the suit land. He died in the year 1970 leaving behind the Plaintiff and the father of the Defendants, namely, Chuni Lal as his heirs. The case of the Plaintiff is that he and Chuni Lal had been jointly cultivating the suit land as tenants on payment of rent to the owners after the death of their father, though he was in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 194 after the death of their father. It was in the last week of May, 1992 that Defendant No. 1, namely, Hari Singh told him that the suit land had been mutated in favour of the Defendants and they have also become owners thereof and have been paying land revenue, therefore, he has no right to cultivate the land. The Plaintiff also found that his brother Chuni Lal, father of Defendants, had got made entry of tenancy exclusively in his favour after the death of their father Chamaru taking undue advantage of minority of Plaintiff who had succeeded to the tenancy rights of his father alongwith Chuni Lal and accordingly proprietary rights were also conferred in favour of Defendants as Chuni Lal had died in the meantime. It is further alleged that thereafter on the basis of wrong revenue entries in their favour the Defendants took possession of the suit land from the Plaintiff on 12.6.1993 which gave cause of action to the Plaintiff to file the civil suit.

(3.) The Defendants contested the suit by taking preliminary objections, inter-alia, of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel and on merits it was alleged that the suit land was under the exclusive tenancy of their late father and the proprietary rights have been conferred on them vide mutation No. 160. According to them, the suit land was never cultivated by the Plaintiff or his father, as such, they have denied that he has any right, title or interest in the suit land.