The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving possession and the correctness of revenue entries in determining ownership and entitlement to relief in a land dispute.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellants/defendants (hereinafter called as “the defendants”) against the respondents/plaintiffs hereinafter called as “the plaintiffs”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76-04, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 196 of 1999/180 of 2000, dated 25.08.2004, was set-aside.

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the plaintiffs, the suit land, to the extent of half share measuring 0-7-0 bigha, was in the possession of Hira Lal, father of defendants No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3, with possession “Khanakashat”. Hira Lal, sold half of his share, measuring 0-7-0 bigha, to one Thakur Ram Dass, father of Champa Devi (plaintiff) and Durga Thakur and Padma Devi, proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 respectively, for consideration of Rs. 350/-, vide sale deed, dated 07.12.1962. As a result of which, Thakur Ram Dass became owner to the extent of half share and came in possession of the same. It is further averred that Thakur Ram Dass died in the year 1983 and on account of his death, his entire share was inherited by plaintiffs, proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 and his widow Lotmi Devi. Lotmi Devi Died in the year 1985, and her estate was inherited by original plaintiff Champa Devi and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5. After family settlement, aforementioned half share came in the share of Champa Devi, daughter of Thakur Ram Dass, this settlement was entered into amongst the legal representatives of Lotmi Devi, after her death. The remaining half share of the suit land was obtained by the plaintiff in an oral exchange from Amar Singh, etc. On the basis of said oral exchange, mutation No. 1638 of phati dwara was entered and attested. In view of this, the plaintiff came in possession of the entire suit land and became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that Hira Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 had already sold his share in the suit land in favour of Thakur Ram Dass and he was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in connivance with the revenue Officials and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, got entered their names and name of Gumtu Devi, widow of Het Ram, in the jamabandi. After the death of Gumtu Devi, widow of Het Ram, respondents No. 1 to 3, become her legal representatives. On the basis of wrong revenue entries, defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the land wrongly and by show of force. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not refrain from their unlawful acts.

3. Conversely, the defendants, by way of filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, suppression of material facts, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation. On merits, the defendants averred that sale deed, dated 07.11.1962, was nothing but only a paper transaction, as no possession was delivered by Hira Lal to the purchaser and no money was paid to the seller by the purchaser, the alleged sale deed was not given effect in the revenue papers and till the filing of the suit, entries on the basis of sale deed could not be made. It was further averred that in the suit land Hira Lal and Lahlu were co-sharers alongwith one Dile Ram. Dile Ram was owner to the extent of half share in the suit land, who transferred his full share measuring 0-7-0 bigha, by way of exchange, in favour of Hira Lal on 12.03.1962. As a result of which, enteries were effected in the name of Hira Lal in revenue papers and he became owner of 0-10-0 bigha. On account of family settlement between Hira Lal and Lahulu, both brother and sister were in possession of total suit land. It was further averred that Hira Lal transfer