P.K.Palli, J..(Oral): This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are aggrieved against the judgment of reversal.

2. Suit, out of which the appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiffs claiming decree for possession of the sun land. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the trial Court granted to the plaintiffs decree for possession, as claimed by them. The appeal filed by the defendant stands allowed by the first appellate Court, Consequently, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

3. Plaintiffs claimed their right, title and interest on the suit land as proprietary body and it was said that they have been continuously shown as owners in possession of the suit land prior to 1940 till 1970-71 when the defendant maneuvered an entry in his favour and was reflected in the revenue record to be in the occupation of the suit land. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed decree for possession.

4. Suit was resisted by the defendant on the plea that he has raised a house on a portion of the property" in question and he had invested huge money on it. The defendant also claimed to have become owner by way of adverse possession. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs were denied.

5. A perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court reveals that the Court conveniently by-passed the real question on different aspect. A look at the judgment shows that the first appellate Court directed itself to examine the legality of the vesting of the suit land in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Act and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law, that is on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lards (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974.

6. In my considered opinion, this point was not even remotely directed to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the first appellate Court completely mis-directed itself to examine this question and then non-suiting the plaintiffs.

7. Jamabandi 1966-67, Ext. P.I. records in its proprietary column "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT HASAB HISSA MUNDARZA SHAJRA NASAB". In the possessory, column, it is recorded "KHUD KAST MAK-BUZA MALKHAN". The total land in question is 19 kanals 7 marlas. 18 Kanals 7 Marlas are recorded as "BANJAR", whereas, one kanal is recorded as "KHARAlTAR" and in the revenue record at a Interstate it is recorded as "GAIR MUMK1N ABAD1".

8. Jamabandi 1971-72, Exl P.2, records Gram Panchayat in the column or ownership, whereas, in the column of cultivation defendant Mecnku is recorded as "GAIR.MAR00S1". Interestingly, in column No.9 pertaining to rent, it is recorded as "MASHK.00K".

9. In Jamabandi 1976-77, Ex.P.3. Provincial Government is recorded as owner and Meenku defendant is recorded in possession as "GAIR MA-ROOSI". Against the column of rent, word "MASHKOOK" appears again The kind of land is recorded the same as noticed above.

10. In the remarks column No. 12 there is an important note in red ink that the mutation has been ordered to be cancelled from the name of the State and is further ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the proprietors showing the land as "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT". This order appears to have been passed by the Tehsildar, as per report.

11. Ext. P.4 is the Girdawari from 1968 to 1972 recording "SHAMLAT PATTI KOT" as owner and in the possessory column as "MAKBUZA MAL-KAN".

12. The defendant has also placed copies of the revenue record, some of which are exactly similar notice of which has been taken above.

13. Ext. D.2 is Jamabandi 1576-77 recording Provincial Government is owner and Meenku defendant as "GAIR MAROOSI" in the column of cultivation. In the note given in red ink in the remarks column, it is said that vide order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated April 21. 1977, the allotment made in favour of tile defendant stands cancelled and he be allotted land at some other place. Here again 18 kanals 7 marlas arc recorded as "BANJAR” and one kanal is recorded as "GAIRMUMKIN ABADI". Ex