Dev Darshan Sud, J.—This is the plaintiffs Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below dismissing their suit claiming a decree of declaration that they had become tenants of the defendant, consequential relief of injunction and a declaration that they be declared as owners in possession of the land under their purported tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs approached the learned trial Court on the allegations that the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs had been settled on the land as tenants by Mahant Akhanda Nand Giri Shri Shri 1008 on payment of half the share of crop as six monthly rent. The plaintiffs alleged that since the defendants had been receiving this crop as "Galla Batai" which was the consideration on rent, therefore, they were entitled to a declaration of tenancy.

3. Necessity for filing the suit arose when the plaintiff discovered that the revenue records had not been properly maintained. According to the plaintiffs, receipts etc. were also being issued in favour of the defendants-respondents. On the refusal of the Secretary of the Temple Committee to accept rent on 14.5.1992 and 26.5.1992, the plaintiffs had a reasonable apprehension that they would be evicted from the land. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that there no tenancy was created, but the land was given on auction on annual contract etc. The question regarding jurisdiction of the Court was raised as a preliminary objection and a bar by the Court to entertain the suit. The learned trial Court framed six issues. Issue No. 1 considered the status of the plaintiffs as tenants under the defendants to the extent as claimed; second issue was whether the defendants were interfering with the lawful possession of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 6 was framed to determine as to whether the suit land had been given on annual contract as alleged by the defendants. The learned trial Court after recording evidence decided all the issues holding issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs and issue No. 6 in favour of the defendants. On the question of jurisdiction, issue No. 5 was framed on which the learned trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected.

4. The plaintiffs appealed to the learned District Judge who formulated two points, namely whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case and secondly whether the findings of the trial Court on issues 1 and 6 dealing with the tenancy were correct? The learned District Judge rightly did not give any finding on the second aspect of the matter holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiffs have appealed against this judgment.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. The learned Courts below have relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram, 1991 (1) Shim. L.C. 223, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. This case was subsequently considered by this Court in Shankar v. Rukmani and others, 2003 (1) Shim. L.C.300. While disposing of the appeal, this Court has held: "3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the District Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Rams case (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the present case. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the plaintiff claimed himself to be in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant for the last 20 years, whereas the defendants denied his claim and asserted that they are owners in possession. Therefore, admittedly the i relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute despite the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff and such kind of disputes are triable by the Civil Court.

10. Coming to the case in hand,