A suit for possession of land by a non-occupancy tenant against a landowner is barred by limitation if it is filed more than three years after the alleged dispossession, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter.

P.K. Palli, J. —The plaintiff-appellants having lost in bath the Court below are in second appeal before this Court..

2. The suit out of which, the present appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession on the ground that they were in cultivation of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants under the defendant No. 2 Smt. Jhalri who was occupancy tenant over the suit land. Smt, Jhalri is said to have acquired proprietary rights and thereafter is said to have sold the suit land in favour of the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs, they were dispossessed illegally somewhere in November, 1969 by the defendant No.1 Bhup Singh and irrespective of the land having been allotted and them sold by defendant No.2, they continue to be the non-occupancy tenants and having been illegally dispossessed, they were entitled to get back the possession of the suit land in the capacity as tenants at will.

3. The defendants denied the status of the plaintiffs as tenants on the suit land The allegation that they were forcibly dispossessed was also denied and according to the defendant No. i, he has been in possession as owner after its purchase from Smt. Jhalri.

4. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties found that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish on record that they were non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and further they were wrongly dispossessed by the defendant No. 1. The suit was consequently ordered to be dismissed.

5. The plaintiffs filed first appeal which stands dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands affirmed.

6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is at pains to contend that the learned first appellate Court has not cared to decide the appeal on merits and no finding has been recorded as to whether the plaintiffs were non occupancy tenants over the suit land under the defendant No. 2 Smt, Jhalri. The appeal according to the learned Counsel stands disposed of after placing reliance on a full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in a case of Bhag Singh and others v. Jawahar Singh and others, AIR 1965 Punj 321. in the impugned judgment, the learned First Appellate Court has held that in view of the law noticed ia the various authorities cited at the bar, the suit was not maintainable as the remedy lies with the revenue officer and the suit could be filed within one year from the date of dispossession of the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs in November, 1969 and the present suit having been filed in the year, 1973 was not maintainable after the expiry of the stipulated period and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case.

7. Mr. Malhotra has also brought to my notice another full bench decision of Himachal Beach at Shimla in a case of Chuhary v Sitru, Delhi (1968) 4 Delhi Law Times Vol 412 and k is sought to be contended that after noticing the full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singhs case, the Honble Bench held that the same was not applicable as the scheme of the Punjab Tenancy Act is different from that of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (15 of 1954) Learned Counsel thus submits that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court be set-aside and the case be remanded back, for decision of the appeal afresh on merits.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents while opposing the arguments of the learned Counsel opposite contends that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is well reasoned and is further based on case law and no interference is called for in second appeal.

9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the impugned judgments, I have questioned the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs to show as to how the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land as non-o