Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Chopal. The plaintiff chajju Ram standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions against him by both the learned Courts below concerts through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, to reverse the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below.
(2.)The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and confirmation of possession was filed by the plaintiffs on the allegations that they are owners in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 153 min, Khasra No. 5018/41, 5018/50 and 5018/126 measuring 33 bighas 1 biswas situated in Mauja Khadar, Pargana Hamal, Tehsil Chopal, being the successor in interest of original owner late Shri Ramsa. In the month of July, 1996 the defendant began to interfere in the land described in Khasra No. 5018/50/2 measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas. It was alleged that the defendant with the active connivance of the Patwari had managed to get himself entered in the column of possession as Khud Kashat. It is alleged that the said entry is illegal, void and not binding on them. It is further alleged that the entries in column No.4 i.e. column of possession and in column No. 7 i.e. column of Lagaan (Bila Lagaan Bawaza Razamandi) in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 pertaining to the suit land have not only cast cloud on the rights of the plaintiffs but the same are serious invasion in their right, title and interest qua suit land.
(3.)The suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by defendant by raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, estoppal, bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, valuation, non-joinder and mis joinder of cause of action. On merits it was pleaded that the defendant has been in peaceful uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1975-76 to the knowledge of one and all including plaintiffs and as such to have become its owner by afflux of time. The entry in column of possession is correct and there is no invasion in the rights of the plaintiffs.