The civil court has jurisdiction to decide land disputes and suits for declaration under section 46 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The correction in revenue records is subject to decision by a civil court.

Devinder Gupta, J —This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree passed on March 17,1980, by District Judge, Harnirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing his appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on August 6, 1979, by Senior Sub-Judge, Una, by which suit of plaintiff-respondent was decreed for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction.

2. Plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration on the basis that he was in actual cultivating possession of 11 Kanals 7 Marias of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 669, t709 671, 672 and 674 situate in village Nfandpur, Tehsil Amb, District Una, as a tenant under the defendant and the correction made in the revenue records in Rabi 1976 showing the defendant to be in cultivating possession was factually wrong, illegal, unauthorised, ineffective and inoperative against his rights and as on the basis of this wrong entry in the revenue records, defendant had intention to interfere with his possession, therefore, as a consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference with his possession was also sought Suit was resisted by the defendant by taking a plea that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and the same was in his possession. The Revenue Officer had rightly passed the order for correction of entry in his name after deleting the wrong entry which had earlier appeared in revenue records showing the plaintiff to be in possession. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had admitted, in writing, before the Panchayat that he was not in possession of the property. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and decide the suit was also challenged by the defendant.

3. The trial Court held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant on payment of rent under the defendant. It also held the order passed by the Revenue Officer ordering the correction to be ineffective and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and negatived the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff ever gave up the possession of the suit property. Suit was held to be entertainable by a civil court In view of these findings, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendant has challenged the judgments and decrees of the courts below in this Regular Second Appeal.

4. During the pendency of appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. M. P No. 1032 of 1980) was filed by the defendant seeking permission to lead additional evidence The application came up before the Court for consideration on October 14, 1980, when it was ordered that the same would be heard and decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court both, the plaintiff as well as defendant, have expired and their respective legal representatives have beep, brought on record of the appeal.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged before me that in view of the averments made in the plaint, in which the plaintiff had claimed a decree for declaration that he was a tenant on the suit land, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit It was further urged that there was cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the defendant on record to show that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and before the Panchayat the plaintiff had, on April 3, 1974, admitted by giving a document in writing that he was not in possession of the property and on the basis of this document, an order Ex. D-I was passed on April 25, 1976, by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, ordering the correction of entries in revenue records by showing the defendant to be in possession. It was on the basis of this order that change was effected in Khasra