The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of remarriage on inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act and the application of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in determining ownership and possession of land.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

Defendant Ishwar Dass is in second appeal before this Court, as learned lower appellate Court on reversal of judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2001, passed in Case No.09-01 of 1999-2001, has decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2002 and held the Neem Dassi (since dead), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) owner in possession of the suit land. As a consequence thereof, the defendant has also been restrained from causing any interference in the suit land.

2. It is seen that the subject matter of dispute is a parcel of land measuring 31-3 bighas entered in Khata Khatauni No.170/201, Kita 4, situate in revenue estate Phati Tawar, Kothi Kandi, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. One Shri Luder Ram, husband of deceased plaintiff Neem Dassi, was owner of the suit land. She inherited the suit land on his death. On finding that the entries in revenue record qua possession of the suit land are in the name of her brother Rukam Ram (since dead). She made an application to Land Reforms Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nirmand, registered as case No.2/98 with a prayer that the entries showing Rukam Ram as owner in possession of the suit land are wrong and that the same may be ordered to be corrected. The application was partly allowed vide order dated 6th May, 1998, Ext.PW-1/B, directing thereby the revenue staff to enter the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd in the name of said Neem Dassi and 1/3rd in that of defendant Ishwar Dass with further observations that since Shri Rukam Ram was never in possession of the suit land, therefore, Neem Dassi aforesaid may file a suit in a civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter to challenge the entries showing him in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share also. This seems to have led in filing the present suit in the trial Court by the deceased plaintiff Smt. Neem Dassi with the following prayer:

“That the plaintiff is in possession and cultivation of the land as comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.170/201 Kitas 4 measuring 31-8-0 bighas situate in Phati Tawar, Kothi Kandi, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, HP with all right, title and interest and the entries in the revenue records (in column of possession in Jamabandi) showing the defendant in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land are wrong, illegal and inoperative in law with consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and cultivations of the plaintiff (owner) over the suit land.” on the ground that late Shri Rukam Ram was never in possession of the suit land or any portion thereof and rather it is she who throughout remained in possession thereof openly, continuously and to the knowledge and notice of the defendant as well as other legal heirs of deceased Rukam Ram. They never objected to her possession over the suit land. On coming to know about wrong entries qua possession of the suit land in revenue record in the month of January, 1998, she made an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nirmand with a prayer to order correction thereof. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, has no right, title or interest in the suit land.

3. The defendant in the written statement raised the preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction of the trial Court and also that in view of the protection of the provisions contained under HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, he can not be ejected from the suit land. The suit has also been sought to be dismissed on the ground that no cause of action exists in favour of the plaintiff and bad for want of proper valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

4. On merits, while submitting that the land was inherited by the plaintiff from her previous husband Luder Ram (now re-married to one Chet Ram), however, his father Rukam Ram re