Deepak Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, by the successors of the original Plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Kangra at Dharmshala in Civil Appeal No. 77 -P/XIII/99 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff.
(2.) ORIGINAL Plaintiff Salig Ram Vaid filed a suit for possession of one half share of the suit land. According to the Plaintiff, he was owner of the said land alongwith other co -sharers and that he alongwith other co -sharers had given the suit land to the predecessors -in -interest of the Defendants on lease on payment of Rs. 275/ - per annum as 'Chakotadar'. It was alleged that the Plaintiff does not want to retain the Defendants and wants to manage the suit land himself. The suit land is a tea -garden and Banjar land and not cultivable land and hence the suit for possession. The stand of the Defendants is that they were non -occupancy tenant over the suit land and after coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act have become owners of the same and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and as per this amendment the Plaintiff wanted to take the plea that the Defendants were licensees and not lessees. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff being the original owner having admitted that the Defendants were lessees could not now be permitted to take up the plea that the Defendants were only licensees.;