The main legal point established in the judgment is that the operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975 led to the plaintiffs becoming owners of the land, and the defendant's possession lacked proper evidence.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (oral) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Civil Appeal No.85/2K RBT No.111/04/2000, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, in case No.106/92 on 23.10.2000, decreeing thereby the suit for declaration preferred by the respondents, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, has been affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

2.The parties to the suit are real brothers. The bone of contention is a piece of land entered in Khewat No. 96 min, Khatauni No.165/90, bearing Khasra No.1579 (new), measuring 1050-85 hectares, situate in Up Mahal, Malahat, Nagar Mahal, Una. Admittedly, the suit land was in possession of Mando, their predecessor-in-interest, in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. Its Khasra number was 116 and area 4-0 bighas. Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 Ext.P1 can be pressed into service in this behalf. After the death of Mando, the same came to be recorded in possession of the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It is so reflected in the jamabandi Ext.P-2 for the year 1970-71. Similar entries came to be recorded in Jamabandis for the years 1978-79, 1979-80 and Misal Hakiat Bando Basti for the year 1988-89 Exts. P3 to P5, respectively.

3.Plaintiffs claim that initially the suit land remained in possession of their father Mando and after his death, the same continued to be in their joint possession alongwith the defendant. They became owners thereof by the operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975. The village underwent consolidation and the suit land came to be denoted by new Khasra No.181 and 183, as per entries in Misal Hakiat Bandobast Ext. P3, for the year 1978-79. The village again underwent settlement operation and Khasra No.1579 was carved out in place of old Khasra Nos. 181 and 183 Min, as per entries reflected in Misal Hakiat Bandobaast Jadid for the year 1988-89 Ext. P5 and vide mutation No.1354, the suit land came to be entered in Up Mahal Malahat Nagar from village Bharolian Khurd. The defendant, who allegedly is a clever and influential person, somehow managed to get the possession of the suit land recorded in his name in connivance with the revenue staff behind the back of the plaintiffs. On the strength of such wrong entries, he threatened them to oust from the suit land and when they came to know about such entries having been recorded qua the suit land in the revenue record, they requested him to desist from throwing such unlawful threats, but to no avail. Hence, the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs alongwith the defendant are joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share and the entries in the revenue record, showing the defendant in exclusive possession thereof, being wrong, illegal, void abinitio and having no effect on the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs, have been sought to be quashed, with the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from ousting the plaintiffs from the suit land.

4.The defendant on entering appearance has contested the suit. He has raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of suit, the same being bad for join- joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under Section 57 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and also the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

5.On merits, no doubt it is admitted that the suit land was in possession of their father in the capacity of tenant, however, he during his life time, had relinquished the tenancy in favour of the owners. After abandonment and relinquishment of the tenancy by their father, the owners inducted the defendant as tenant on payment of rent to them and as such he is in exclusive possession thereof.He was living separately from his father and