(Rajiv Sharma, J.) - This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1991.

2.Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a civil suit in the court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Amb, District Una for declaration with permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that one Ghasitu, Amar Nath sons of Sh. Tulsi Ram and Milkhi Ram son of Sh. Sudama, deceased, along with defendants No. 1 to 4, namely, Parmeshwari Dass, Harbans Lal, Nanak Chand and Parkash Chand got entered their names in the suit land at the back of the plaintiffs in connivance with the revenue field staff and on the basis of the said illegal and false entries in their names, said Ghasitu, Amar Nath, Milkhi Ram deceased and defendants No. 1 to 4 further got sanctioned the mutation No. 187 of proprietary rights with respect to the land mentioned in paras (a) and (b) of the head note of the plaint and mutation No. 188 of proprietary rights with respect to the land mentioned in para (c) of the plaint in their names illegally at the back of the plaintiffs without taking recourse to law though actually Ghasitu etc. deceased Milkhi Ram or defendants No. 1 to 4 were never inducted nor admitted as tenants on the suit land nor they paid any rent to the plaintiffs, which is a first requisite of tenancy. It is further averred that during the consolidation operation in the village, the defendants in connivance with the consolidation staff and also by taking benefit of illegal and false entries in the names of defendants No. 1 to 4 Ghasitu deceased, got allotted the suit land in their favour in the following manner :-

Defendants No. 1 to 5 got allotted the land measuring 5 Kanals 12 marlas mentioned in para (a) of the head note of the plaint, defendants No. 6 to 14 got allotted the land mentioned in para (b) of the head note of the plaint and similarly, defendants No. 3 and 4 got allotted the land mentioned in para (c) of the head note of the plaint in their favour.

3.These proceedings according to the plaintiffs were held at their back and without adopting proper procedure. Defendants No. 1, 2, 6 and 8 to 14 in the original suit filed the written statement to the plaint. Their case in nutshell was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and the defendants were in possession of the suit land as tenants and have become owners prior to the consolidation operation and the plaintiffs did not raise any objection during the course of consolidation proceedings. The plaintiffs filed the detailed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. “Whether the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the revenue entries in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 4, Ghasitu, Amar Nath and Milkhi are wrong and false, as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the suit is within time ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

4. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holding Act ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct ? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD

7. Relief.”

4.The trial Court returned the following findings on the aforesaid issues :-

“Issue No. 1Plaintiffs are owners and entries in favour of defendants are wrong.

Issue No. 2 Yes

Issue No. 3 No

Issue No. 4 No

Issue No. 5 No

Issue No. 6 No

Relief.Suit decreed for possession as per operative portion of the judgment.”

5.On issue No. 4, the trial Court held that since the suit was based on title, the civil court had the jurisdiction to decide the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18.9.1991.