- (1.)The plaintiffs are the appellants, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, whereby he held the suit of the plaintiff to be not maintainable before the Civil Court and thereby reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, have filed this Regular Second Appeal questioning the said judgment and decree.
(2.)The bare minimal facts as necessary for adjudication of this case are that the plaintiffs/appellants (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 62min/160, Khasra No. 1 min measuring 3 Bighas, Khasra No. 55 min measuring 7 Bighas and Khasra No. 56 min measuring 14 Biswas, Kitas 3 total measuring 10 Bighas 14 Biswas. It was further pleaded that the revenue entries showing Darshan Singh, (now deceased) as non-occupancy tenant were wrong, illegal, void and not binding on plaintiffs and proforma defendants, as he was never inducted as non-occupancy tenant. The owners were not aware of the wrong revenue entries and only in the month of May, 1990, plaintiff No. 1 came to know about such entries, where after, he moved an application opposing the attestation of conferment of proprietary rights upon defendant No. 1.
However, defendant No. 1, taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land in July, 1990.

(3.)Only defendant No. 1 contested the suit and denied that he had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land in July, 1990 and asserted that he was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and was inducted as such by predecessor of the plaintiffs in the year 1960. He raised the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit and further submitted that the conferment and vestment of proprietary rights is automatic under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.