JUDGMENT :

P.S. Rana, J.

Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge Hamirpur H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 26/95 (RBT) No. 133 of 2002 titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others and against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 96/89 titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Shri Bakshi Ram plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in alternative relief of possession pleaded therein that plaintiff is tenant over 2/3rd share of land comprised in Khata No. 23 Khatauni No. 23 Khasra Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 and Khata No. 23 Khatauni No. 25 Khasra Nos. 5, 18 and 19 situated in Suphan Tappa Lohdar Tehsil Barsar District Hamirpur H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. It is pleaded that land was under the tenancy of plaintiff Bakshi Ram since long time and deceased defendant Lachhman through his LRs has no concern with suit land. It is pleaded that deceased defendant Lachhman was very aggressive and quarrelsome person and he threatened to reap the crop from the suit land forcibly sown by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested the deceased defendant Lachhman several time to accept and acknowledge the status of plaintiff as tenant over suit property but he did not accept the request of plaintiff. It is further pleaded that relief as sought in relief clause of plaint be granted to plaintiff.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action. It is further pleaded that suit land is joint between the parties and entry of non-occupancy tenant is wrong and contrary to law in favour of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff was wrongly entered as non-occupancy tenant upon 2/3rd share under deceased defendant Lachhman. It is pleaded that plaintiff and defendant are co-owners of suit land and further pleaded that plaintiff has only 1/3rd share on the suit land. It is pleaded that deceased defendant through his LRs is in settled possession of 2/3rd share at the spot. It is pleaded that defendant has also filed a correction application before the LRO Barsar for correction of Khasra Girdawari of suit property and same was allowed by learned Land Reforms Officer vide case No. 109/92 titled Smt. Indri Devi widow of Lachhman and others vs. Shri Bakshi Ram on dated 17.7.1993 w.e.f. Kharif 1992. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. During pendency of suit sole defendant Lachhman died and his LRs brought on record.

4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 7.9.1989:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is tenant in possession of 2/3 share of suit land as alleged? …OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? …OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form? ……OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? ..OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not cause of action? …..OPD

6. Whether entries in the revenue record showing plaintiff to be tenant of 2/3rd share are wrong and illegal? ….OPD.

7. Relief.

5. On dated 23.1.1995 learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and learned trial Court held that issues No. 3, 4 and 5 became redundant. Learned trial Court decided issue No. 6 in favour of the defendant and suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 23.1.1995 appellant Bakshi Ram preferred Civil Appeal No. 26/1995 (RBT 133/02) titled Bakshi Ram vs. Indri Devi and others and learned Additional District Judge Hamirpur (H.P.) on dated 22.2.2003 dismissed the appea