JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Kishori Lal instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 38/92 before the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Una, District Una. H.P. In the afore Civil Suit, the plaintiff claimed the making of a declaratory decree against the defendants, and, vis-à-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, the plaintiff also claimed the making of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, and, vis-à-vis, the suit khasra numbers..

2. The afore espoused relief(s) became accorded, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff by the learned trial Court through its verdict drawn on 30th May, 2002.

3. The aggrieved defendants there against carried an appeal bearing No. 50/2002, before the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. The learned first Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal, and, made the hereinafter extracted relief:-

"In view of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2 above, the appeal is partly accepted and the relief of declaration as granted by the learned trial Judge is set-aside and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in khewat No. 2 min. Khatauni No. 2, min khasra Nos. 1080 and 1081 measuring 8 kanalas 18 marlas, situate in village Bangarh The and Distt. Una, HP is hereby granted with no order as to costs.

4. The reasons which prevailed, upon, the learned first Appellate Court, to decline to the plaintiff, the relief of declaration in as much as his becoming owner of the suit land, through operation of the mandate carried in Section 104 of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, are embodied in paragraph 28 of its verdict, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

"28. In the case in hand the plaintiff has sought declaration that he has become owner of the suit land under the provisions of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972. To my mind such a declaration normally cannot be granted by the Civil Court as only a Land Reform Officer can decided about the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104 read with Rule 29 of the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. This view appears to have been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Gopal Krishan versus Jagtamba Parsad 2002 (1) S.L.J. 425 and Roshan Lal versus Surjan, 1999 S.L.J (1) 502 (HP). In both these cases it was held that power to grant injunction is a common law remedy exclusively within the province of civil court. However the question of conferment of the proprietary rights does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and parties are at liberty to approach the Land Reform Officer for the determination of such dispute. Accordingly, declaration granted by the learned trial Judge to the effect that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land measuring 8 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khewat No. 2 min. khatauni No. 2 min. Khasra Nos. 1080 and 1081 situate in village Bangarh Tehsil and Distt. Una is liable to be set-aside and it is held that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as a tenant. In view of this both these points are decided accordingly."

5. The defendants became aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict of the learned first appellate Court, and, obviously were led to institute there-against the instant appeal before this Court.

6. Earlier this Court had upon the extant Regular Second Appeal pronounced a verdict on 11.3.2015. Through the afore drawn verdict, it had proceeded, to, affirm the verdict, as, become recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, and, accordingly answered the substantial questions of law, which became extracted hereinafter:-

"1. Whether the Courts below wrongly interpreted Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram [1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223], which resulted in miscarriage of justice?

2. Whether the findings of the trial Court as affirmed are dehors the evidence on record?"

7. Against the afore drawn verdict, the aggrieved therefrom carried Civil Appeal No. 9933 of 2017, before t