A civil court has jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy rights where the revenue authorities acted without complying with fundamental principles of judicial procedure or provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

M, Srinivasan, C J —This revision petition is filed by the Decree Holder in Civil Suit No, 186/1 of 1981 on the file of Senior Sub-Judge, Solan, The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 15 bighas 14 bis was in Khasra No. ISO, situate in village Nagali, Teh and District Solan, vide jamabandi for the year 1974-75. According to plaintiffs, the land was mortgaged in favour of the defendants9 predecessor-in-interest with possession and later the defendants got possession as such mortgagees. The suit was for declaration that the defendants were not tenants and for redemption, The suit was contested by the defendants mainly on the ground that they were tenants over the land and they had become owners of the said land, in view of the provision of H. P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Two issues were framed with regard to the same. Issue No. 3 was whether defendants were tenants in the land in dispute and issue No 4 was whether the defendants have become owner of the suit land as alleged. Both the issues were found against the defendants. The Court found that the plaintiffs were the mortgagors and the defendants got into possession only to the mortgagor. Consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for by the plaintiffs on 30-5-1984.

2. When the Decree Holders sought to execute the said decree by Execution Petition No 40/10 of 1991, the Judgment Debtors have raised an objection that the decree is not executable, inasmuch as the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to do so. According to the Judgment Debtors, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide any question which was covered by the provisions of H P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, The Judgment Debtors placed reliance on the judgment of Full Bench in Chuhniya Devi v. Jihdu Ram, 1991 (1) Sim LC 223. The executing Court accepted that contention of the Judgment Debtors and held that the decree was passed by a Court without jurisdiction, and, therefore, not executable. Consequently, the petition for execution was dismissed.

3. The aggrieved Decree Holders have preferred this Revision Petition. 1 have no hesitation to hold that the view expressed by the executing Court, is totally erroneous. The judgment of this Court rendered by the Full Bench in Chuhniya Devis case, does not help the judgment debtors in the present case In answering Question No. 2 referred to the Full Bench, the Court has observed : "The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietory rights under section 104 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with.”

4. In this case, the entries in the revenue record regarding the tenancy rights of the Judgment Debtors and the consequential proprietary rights were made ex parte, without any inquiry whatever. The Decree Holders were not aware of the said entries; nor were they given any notice before the entries were made by the revenue authorities. The Civil Court had gone into that question and come to the conclusion that the possession of the judgment debtors was that: of mortgagees and they had no right as tenants whatever In such a situation, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question In fact, the proposition laid down by the Full Bench, as aforesaid, can itself govern the judgment of the Civil Court and it will fall within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as laid down by the Full Bench. Consequently, I hold that the judgment rendered in the Civil Suit No. 186/1 of 198i is a valid judgment and well within the jurisdiction of the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan, who rendered the same.

5. A similar question had been considered in Civil Revision No. 105 of 1