The plaintiffs' claim for ownership was limited to the shares held by the landowners, and their omission to include other landowners as co-defendants breached the principle of audi alteram partem.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiffs instituted civil suit bearing No. 227- 1 of 1999, before the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed, the, making a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, and, qua the suit khasra Nos, comprised in khata/khatoni No. 54/82, khasra Nos 927/94, 99, 586, 704, 707 and 708, kitas 6, measuring 50-9 bighas. The learned trial Judge, through his decision made on 28.7.2003, upon the afore civil suit, granted the espoused decree to the plaintiffs. The defendant, one Prem Singh, became aggrieved from the judgment and decree, made by the learned trial Judge, upon, the afore civil suit, and hence preferred an appeal thereagainst, before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The afore Civil Appeal, bearing No. 48-S/13 of 2006/04, became decided on 3.5.2007. Through the afore made verdict, the learned first Appellate Court, dismissed the defendants' appeal, and, obviously upheld the judgment and decree (supra), as became pronounced by the learned trial Judge, upon Civil Suit No. 227-1 of 1999.

2. The defendant, one Prem Singh became aggrieved from the afore made concurrent judgment(s) and decree(s), as became respectively, pronounced by the learned trial Judge concerned, and, by the learned First Appellate Court concerned. Consequently, he instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, bearing No. 353 of 2007, before this Court, and, therethrough, he strived for annulment(s) of the judgment(s) and decree(s), as became concurrently rendered against him, by both the learned Courts below. When the appeal, came up for admission before this Court, on 21.7.2008, this Court admitted, the instant appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:

Whether Decree for 50 Bigha 9 Biswas could be granted in view of the fact that the plaintiffs claimed one third share, in land measuring 50 bighas and 9 biswas, of which they earned ownership, they being the tenants granted ownership?

3. Since the extant Regular Second Appeal, has been admitted on the afore formulated substantial question of law. Therefore, this Court would not delve into the entire gamut of the lis, rather this Court confines itself, only in meteing an answer, to the afore formulated substantial question of law.

4. Be that as it may, it is yet imperative to bear in mind, the factum that the dimensions of the suit khasra Nos, respectively bearing khasra Nos 927/94, 99, 586, 704, 707 and 708, kitas 6, is 50-9 bighas. The defendants, in their written statement, as became instituted to the plaint, contested the validity of the attestation of mutation, on 31.3.1998, and, where through proprietary rights became conferred, upon, the plaintiffs, vis- -vis, the entire area, of the suit khasra Nos, rather measuring 50-9 bighas. Moreover, they also contested the validity of the revenue entries, as became prepared in consonance with the afore made order of mutation. However, as aforestated, this Court would refrain to delve into the legality of the afore, as this Court confines itself only to meteing an answer, to the substantial question of law (supra), whereon, the instant Regular Second Appeal became admitted by this Court.

5. Therefore, for meting an apt answer to the substantial question of law (supra), and dehors this Court being precluded to delve into the validity or legality of the order of mutation, made on 31.3.1998, and, wherethrough proprietary rights became conferred upon the plaintiffs, vis- -vis, the entire dimension/area(s) of the suit khasra Nos, inasmuch as vis- -vis, an area measuring 50-9 bighas, (i) thereupon the import of the displays, made in Ext. PA, is also required to be analyzed. Ext. PA is the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit khasra Nos. Though, entries carried in the Jamabandi concerned, carry a presumption of truth, and, also though the afore presumption of truth, is rebuttable. However, since the plaintiffs, did not, contest the