The importance of complying with the H.P. Land Revenue Act and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the significance of framing proper issues based on specific pleadings to ensure a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

Per Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment, dated 21.8.2015, rendered by learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 42/2014.

2. The key facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ?plaintiffs? for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and possession against appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ?defendant? for convenience sake). Jog Raj was added as proforma defendant. According to the averments made in the plaint, one Daitu had two sons, namely, Tehlu and Dodu. Tehlu expired and his property was inherited by his son, Repu. Dodu also expired and his property was inherited by his son, Bholu. After the death of Bholu, his property was also inherited by his daughter, Nanji. Property of Repu was also inherited by plaintiffs. Nanji was owner in possession of land measuring 0-05-64 hectares, comprised in Khasra No.432, Khata Khatauni No.171/283, situated in Phati Hallan-I, Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04. Nanji was deaf and dumb. She used to reside with the plaintiffs. After her death, the plaintiffs inherited her property. Thereafter, they had become owners in possession of the suit land. However, in order to grab the suit land, the defendant filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kullu bearing case No. 6-T/2008 for correction of revenue entries without making the plaintiffs party and the application was allowed on 20.10.2008. Mutation No.120, dated 22.10.2009, was attested behind the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant started causing unlawful interference over the suit land. It is under these circumstances, the suit was filed.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. On merits, it was averred that Daitu had three sons, Tehlu, Dodu and Kamlu. He denied that after the death of Bholu, his property was inherited by Nanji. According to him, one Lihri, sister of mother of Nanji, namely, Nathi had bequeathed her property in favour of Nanji. Nathi during her life time with the consent of Nanji inducted defendant as tenant over the suit land about more than 40 years ago on payment of 1/4th share of the produce and now the defendant is in possession of the suit land. Nanji was dumb, but not deaf and was not of low intelligence. He denied that Nanji ever resided with the plaintiffs. According to him, Bholu, his wife Nathi and Nanji resided with Totu, who was the real brother of Bholu. After the death of Bholu, Nathi and Nanji resided with the defendant and Totu. Totu in lieu of past and future services being rendered by defendant gifted his entire landed property in his favour vide registered gift deed in the year 1993. Totu died in the year 1998. After the death of Totu, defendant continued to look after and maintain Nanji. Last rites of Totu, his wife Poshi and Nanji were performed by him. At the time of commencement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the suit land was being cultivated by him on payment of rent. He developed an orchard.

4. The learned trial court framed the issues on 7.12.2010 and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate court, who allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.2015 and remanded the suit to the learned trial court for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard and to lead evidence to the parties on additional issues No. 1(a) and 1(b). Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Ranjana Chauhan, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 passed by the learned trial court.

6. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2015 passed by the learned first appellate court.

7. I have heard lear