- (1.)The defendant has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 17.5.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 5/ 2002, affirming judgment, decree dated 27.11.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu, in Civil Suit No.216 of 99.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that respondent had filed a suit for declaration that respondent is owner in possession of the suit land, more specifically described in the plaint, as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97. It has been alleged that respondent is owner in possession of the suit land. The revenue entries showing the appellant as tenant in possession of the suit land are wrong and contrary to factual position on spot and are not binding on the respondent. The appellant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. It has been alleged that when the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 was prepared, the appellant without notice, knowledge and behind the back of respondent and in connivance with the revenue officials got his name recorded as tenant under the respondent over the suit land. The respondent never inducted the appellant as tenant nor the appellant is in possession of the suit land. The rapat No.299 dated 26.5.1997 is wrong, illegal and respondent is not bound by such rapat. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed.
(3.)The suit was contested by appellant by filing written statement. It has been pleaded that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands, material facts have been suppressed and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the discretionary relief. The suit is not maintainable; the respondent is estopped from filing the suit. On merits, appellant submitted that he is owner in possession of the suit land. It has been alleged that father of the appellant was inducted as tenant on the suit land in lieu of service rendered by him. The appellant after the death of his father is in possession of the suit land. In the year 1997 the revenue officials visited the spot and necessary correction was made in the revenue record, the report to this effect is mentioned in the rapat roznamcha dated 26.5.1997. The appellant has become owner of the suit land by operation of law. The replication was filed.