JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 523 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Una, District Una, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the hereinafter extracted decree against the defendants, and, vis-a-vis, the suit land:-

“It is therefore prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, changing the nature and character, usurping possession and cutting and removing the trees and ousting the plaintiff from land measuring 0-04-60 comprised in Khewat No.22 min, KhatauniNo.90 min, bearing Khasra Nos. 1208 (0-03-04), 1209 (0-01-56) as entered in Missal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid Sani for the year 1991-92 situated in Village Bharolian Khurd, Tehsil and District Una, and in the alternative a decree for possession of the suit land in case the defendants succeed in usurping possession forcibly during the pendency of the suit be passed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”

2. The learned trial Court through its verdict made thereon on 23.2.2006 rather decreed the afore espoused relief(s).

3. The aggrieved defendants constituted there against a Civil Appeal bearing No. 34 of 2006 before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made on 24.12.2008, upon, the afore civil appeal, allowed the appeal, and, set aside the verdict of the learned trial Court.

4. The plaintiff being aggrieved, from the afore verdict of the learned First Appellate Court, is led to constitute there against, the extant appeal before this Court.

5. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 04.03.2009, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. What is the legal sanctity of the separate khasra numbers prepared during the settlement proceedings when the plaintiff is found in actual physical cultivatory possession of min No.?

2. What is the legal effect when min khasra number of big chunk of land is converted into different specific khasra number having the possession of individual-plaintiff?.

Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2.

6. The validity of the afore made verdict by the learned First Appellate Court is to be gauged, from the Missal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid Sani, borne in Ex. D-3, drawn with respect to the suit land, and, appertaining to the year 1991-92, wherein, vis-avis, extant khasra No.1208 and 1209, rather theretos the prior old khasra No.741 and 761 became ascribed. In the column of possession thereof, the name of the plaintiff is shown to be in cultivatory possession, hence, as Hissedar Kabij.

7. An immense solemnity is to be assigned, to the afore made entries, reflecting one Daulat Ram, the plaintiff as Hissedar Kabij, under the landowners mentioned, in the column of ownership, in the Missal Hakat Bandobast Jadid Sani, borne in Ex. D-3, and, as drawn for the year 1991-92. However, in the Missal Hakiat for the year 1978-79, borne in Ex. D-1, and, as appertaining to the suit land, vis-a-vis old Khasra Nos. 741 and 761, and to which after conclusion of conclusive settlement proceedings, new khasra number(s), 1208 and 1209, became ascribed, though, the name of Daulat Ram is shown to be in possession of the suit land. However, in the column of remarks, the entry is of “Bina Lagan Kabja Kastkar”. The signification of the afore entries, is that the afore Daulat Ram, was holding only permissive possession of the suit land, under the land owners, without his liquidating rent in cash or in kind to the landowners concerned. Since, the liquidation of rent in cash or in kind by the afore Daulat Ram, to the landowners concerned was both, an indispensable and, an imperative sine qua none, for his being construed to be a valid gair maurusi, vis-a-vis, the suit kahsra numbers, for his thereafter hence automatic statutory vestment, of title in him, occurring over the suit land, rather upon, coming into operation of