Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., whereby she affirmed the rendition of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The defendant standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below, concert through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, to beget reversal of the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below.
(2.)The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that plaintiffs sought declaration to the effect that they are owners of land comprising Khata No. 204, Khatauni No. 275, Khasra No. 223, measuring 0-11-77 hectares, situated at Mohal Chogan, Mouza Bir, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, as per Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the entry showing the defendant as owner is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon them as the same were recorded on the basis of mutation No. 486 of 18.08.1999 whereby he was declared to be owner under the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It is contended that defendant was never inducted as tenant over the suit land by the plaintiffs nor their predecessors. Hence, the defendant be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction. Further it is contended that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs from father of the defendant to the extent of 333310/63906760 share from suit land out of total land measuring 05-54-59 hectares. It is contended that plaintiffs were living in Punjab due to his service and during settlement joint land was partitioned though they were never summoned and partition was conducted behind their back in which Khasra No. 467 was given to the plaintiffs and they were put in possession which is also evident from the jamabandi. Lateron in 1994-95 when Iatemaal was done and said Khasra No. 467 was given new Khasra No. 223 and the defendant was wrongly shown as tenant and on the basis of this wrong entry defendant got mutation No. 486 attested conferring proprietary rights under H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It is contended that this fact came to their knowledge in the month of November, 2009. Thereafter, they asked the defendant to get the wrong entries corrected in the revenue record. He paid no heed to their request. Hence, the present suit.
(3.)The suit was contested by defendant. He filed written statement, wherein he raised preliminary objections about maintainability of the suit and cause of action, limitation, estoppel and locus standi. On merits, it is averred that he is coming in possession of the suit land even prior to 1971. However, his name was got deleted by the plaintiffs in the revenue record but he continued with possession over the suit land without any interruption. Thereafter, consolidation took place in the village in the year 1994-95 and on his application of 25.11.1995 he was recorded as gair marusi and he has been paying lagan in the shape of galla batai to the plaintiff and thereafter he was conferred with proprietary rights under H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and mutation No. 486 dated 8.8.1999 was also attested in this behalf and as such he has now become absolute owner of the suit land. However, the factum of purchasing the land from his father is admitted. It is also averred that the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 themselves inducted him as tenant over the suit land since 1971 and as such he has rightly been recorded as tenant in the revenue record, as such, the question of taking forcible possession of the suit land does not arise at all. All other contents of the plaint are denied and a prayer is made for dismissal of the suit.