The interpretation of documents and alleged admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and proved conclusively. The jurisdiction of the court is not determined by the ultimate findings of fact.

ORDER :

Brijesh Kumar, J. - While granting the leave to file an appeal in this Court, the following order was passed on 12-3-1997:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question for decision is whether the averment in the plaint filed in the earlier suit (extracted at p. 25 of the paperbook), amounts to an admission of all the facts which are essential to satisfy the definition of ?tenant? in Section 2(17) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Learned counsel further submits that the averment in the earlier plaint being treated as admission of the petitioner cannot be construed as an admission by the petitioner that the respondent is a tenant. His submission further is that this question of law which arose for decision in the second appeal was not properly appreciated or decided by the High Court.

Leave granted."

2. To properly appreciate the background in which the abovesaid question arose for consideration it may be necessary to have the brief facts leading to the fact of admission said to be made by the plaintiff.

3. The appellant-plaintiff is undisputedly the owner of the land in question. Relevant entries in the revenue records for different years are in his favour which have been referred to in the detailed judgments of all the three courts, namely, the trial court, the first appellate court as well as in the judgment of the High Court in second appeal. For the first time, however, an entry of possession and occupancy tenancy is found recorded in favour of the defendants in the revenue records for the year 1975 which seems to be the cause leading to filing of a suit by the appellant in the year 1975, for a declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit, it appears, was not pursued and it was dismissed in default, even before any written statement was filed. Thereafter, in 1978 the plaintiff filed another suit out of which the present proceeding arose. According to the case of the appellant-plaintiff, due to ill health, in the year 1975 he had engaged the defendants as labour for carrying out the cultivatory operation on wages of Rs 400 per annum. The plaintiff recovered from his illness in 1977. Taking advantage of the illness of the appellant-plaintiff, the defendant, in collusion with the officials of the Revenue Department got the entries made wrongly in their favour. The defendants also refused to vacate the land in question. Hence, the suit was filed for possession against the defendants who, according to the plaintiff, were trespassers on the suit property. The case of the defendants on the other hand, was that they have been in possession of the suit property for 15-16 years before the filing of this suit and at the time when the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, came into force in 1974 under which they acquired the tenancy rights in the said land. In support of their case, the defendants placed reliance, particularly, on two documents, namely, Exh. P-3, which contains an entry in their favour, and Exhibit D-3, daily report of the Patwari of the area which according to them indicates that they had been in possession of the suit land since October 1974 and that the daily diary was prepared in the presence of the owner of the land.

4. We find that the trial court has written a detailed judgment indicating therein a number of documents and entries in the revenue records as well as the oral evidence adduced by the parties. On consideration and appreciation of the evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants failed to prove their possession anytime prior to 1975. Along with other facts, it was also observed that it would be highly improbable that any landlord would give the land on tenancy after the coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 so as to knowingly lose all his rights in the land. This fact was also taken note of that except for the entries made in the khasra girdawari after 17-4