Sandeep Sharma, J. - (1.)Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.04.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 32-CA/13 of 2004, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge( Senior Division) Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, whereby suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff came to be dismissed.
(2.)Material facts necessary for adjudication as emerge from the pleadings are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he has become owner in possession of land comprised in khata/khatauni No.55min/ 118min, khasra No.313, measuring 3-12 bighas, out of total land measuring 293-11 bighas, situated in village Kajwa, Tehsil Renuka Ji at Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P.( hereinafter referred to as the suit land), by way of adverse possession. As per plaintiff, prior to him Gollu and Sunder Singh son of Sh. Bhajnu, father of the plaintiff were in uninterrupted and open possession of the suit land for more than 60 years and defendants(hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have no concern with the suit land. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that appellant/ defendant No.2 in collusion with appellant/defendant No.1 got the name of the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff deleted from the revenue record vide letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984, passed by the District Collector, Sirmaur District at Nahan, which is illegal, null and void and not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff.
(3.)Defendants/Appellants by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff, taking therein preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel, limitation and valuation. On merits, defendants/ appellants categorically stated in the written statement that Patwari of Patwar Circle Sangna had incorporated a rapat in rojnamcha regarding the change of entry with respect to cultivation without any legal basis and as such later on these entries were illegally incorporated in the jamabandis, whereby respondent/plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the suit land. Defendants/appellants further averred before the court below that in the month of April, 2002, plaintiff/ respondent made an attempt to cultivate the suit land and after the report, proceedings under Section 4 of the H.P. Public Premises Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were initiated by appellant/defendant No.2 while exercising his power of Collector under aforesaid Act. Defendants/appellants also claimed that proceedings, as referred above, are in progress. Defendants/ appellants while specifically denying that plaintiff was in possession over the suit land contended that his name stands deleted from the revenue record in terms of direction issued by the District Collector, Sirmaur vide his letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984 and as such, suit having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.