Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The appellant is one of the defendant, who having lost before both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant appeal.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased plaintiff Leela Devi filed a civil suit stating that she was joint owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 67 (in red 66), Khatauni Nos. 118, 119, 120, 121, Khasra Nos. 24, 30,32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 22, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 21, 25, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 43, 66, Kita 24, measuring 1-53-36 hectares, situated at Mohal Ambota, Mouza Gharoh, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the entries showing defendants as non-occupancy tenants over Khasra Nos. 22, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 21, 25, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 43, 66, Kita 17, measuring 0-72-87 hectares, were wrong and illegal as the defendants never remained non-occupancy tenants over the suit land. The defendants in connivance with the revenue staff got the aforesaid revenue entries recorded in their favour and thereafter illegally got the mutation No. 233 sanctioned in their favour qua the proprietorship of the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs be declared owner in possession of the suit land alongwith other co-owners and entry showing defendants as non-occupancy tenants be declared null and void and the mutation No.233 be also declared null and void. Further the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit land was prayed. In alternative, the plaintiff prayed for decree of possession.
(3.) The defendants filed written statement as well as counter claim wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, limitation, act and conduct of the plintiff, jurisdiction of the Court, valuation of suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the revenue entries showing the defendants as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land were right and factually correct. The defendants were non-occupancy tenants and consequently they acquired proprietory rights by virtue of provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was denied that the defendants procured wrong revenue entries in their favour. The defendants were paying Galla Batai in lieu of the cultivation to the land owners. Lastly, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.;