The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper interpretation and application of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and the correction of entries in records.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for possession, qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession of the land measuring 41-00 sq. meters, comprising Khewat No.238 min, Khatauni No.577, Khasra Nos. 1759 and 1760, situated in UP Mahal Basdehra Brahmna, Village Basdehra, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the suit land is owned and possessed by them and the defendants have no right, title or interest thereon. It is averred that during the settlement operation in the village, the defendants, procured wrong entries, showing them in possession over the suit land. However, such entries have been affected in the absence and without notice of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the revenue entries in favour of the defendants are wrong and illegal. It is on the basis of the said wrong revenue entries, the defendants have encroached upon the suit land near about six months back and they have raised construction in khasra No.1760 and opened the doors towards Khasra N.1759. It is averred that the defendants are again threatening to cover the whole area of the suit land. All these illegal acts are being done by the defendants despite the request being made by the plaintiffs for not doing such things. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have denied that the plaintiffs ever owned and possessed the suit land. It is claimed that the suit land was never part of resettlement of Khasra No.624. On the other hand, it is asserted that this was a part of old khasra No.621 and where there are old abadies of the defendants. It is admitted that the settlement authorities have recorded wrong revenue entries in the record. They are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the suit land is not found to be part of old khasra number 621, then they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues, inter-se, the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the suit land is part of khasra No.621, as alleged? OPD.

3. If issue No.2 is not proved, whether the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Relief.

6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 20.07.2007, admitted the appeal, instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether both the Courts below were correct in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and holding the defendants to be in adverse possession of the suit land, when the title of the plaintiffs had been denied?

Substantial question of Law No.1