The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court has jurisdiction to test the validity of the Compensation Officer's order under the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, and the applicability of Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act in cases of joint tenancy.

Surjit Singh, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted vide order dated 22.8.1996 on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the suit is entertainable in the civil court when the matter of conferment of proprietary rights was finally determined by the Compensation Officer under the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act?

2 Whether it was permissible for civil court to determine the legality and validity of the order of compensation officer merely on the ground of sufficiency, validity for regularity of service, as if sitting as a court of appeal?

3 Whether the suit assailing the order of the Compensation Officer is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

4 Whether the suit for declaration seeking to avoid the order of conferment of proprietary rights could be assailed in the civil court after a lapse of about 13 years. Whether suit was governed by the provision of Article 100/113 of Section 65 of the Limitation Act. Whether the approach of the learned Lower Appellate Court is wrong in applying provisions of Section 65 of the Limitation Act?

5 When the revenue entries which are lawfully substituted, could be ignored from consideration to come to the conclusion that the persons other than recorded as tenants were also having some interest in the land. Whether such approach of the court below is against the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act?

2. Facts, which have led to the filing of the present appeal and which are relevant for answering the aforesaid questions and deciding the appeal, may be noticed. There used to be three brothers, named Prem Singh, Kushal Singh and Nand Lal. They all were recorded as joint tenants on land, measuring 13 bighas, 4 biswas, 12 biswansi, situate in village Panjethi, Illauq Pachhiat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, as per description given in para 1 of the plaint. Owner of the land was Tarlok Nath temple. Earliest Jamabandi entry, recording the three brothers as joint tenants under the aforesaid land owner, pertains to the year 1947-48, copy whereof is Ext. P-10. In the next Jamabandis for the years 1951-52 (copy Ext. P-1) and 1955-56 (copy Ext. P-6) also, all the three brothers were recorded as joint tenants, but the land is recorded in exclusive possession of Nand Lal as co-tenant and not in his individual capacity. On the strength of this entry, said Nand Lal applied to the Compensation Officer, under the H.P. Abolition of Big Land Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the above described land, on him. That application was allowed and the proprietary rights were conferred upon said Nand Lal, vide order dated 6.12.1973, and mutation was also attested on the basis of said order, on 3.1.1976, in favour of said Nand Lal. The other two brothers came to know about the said order dated 6.12.1973 and mutation dated 3.1.1976, some time in the year 1986. They immediately filed a suit, seeking declaration that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land with Nand Lal, their third brother, and by way of further relief they prayed for a decree of joint possession.

3. Nand Lal had died before the institution of the suit and his estate was inherited by his legal heirs, who were impleaded as defendants and they are now appellants in the present appeal.

4. Defendants took the plea that their predecessor-in-interest Nand Lal was exclusive tenant on the suit land and the proprietary rights had rightly been conferred upon him to the exclusion of Prem Singh and Kushal Singh, the other two brothers, who also died during the pendency of the litigation and are now represented by their legal representatives. They are respondents herein.

5. Following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint non-occupancy tenants of the suit land as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the proprietary right conferred on th