The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, regarding proprietary rights and the jurisdiction of the civil court.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

This is the defendant's Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. For the sake of convenience, Sh. Daulat Ram (respondent herein) is referred to as the plaintiff and Sh. Chet Ram (appellant herein) is referred to as the defendant.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming to be owner in possession of 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land situate in village Malgi bearing khata/khatauni No. 12/16. Also that entries of mutation Numbers 145 and 147, recording the defendant to be owner thereof are illegal. Injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the possession was sought. Plaintiff alleged to be owner in possession of the suit land on the strength of a registered gift deed dated 8.12.1975 (Ext. PA) executed by the original co-owner Brestu, which stood recorded in the revenue record vide sanction dated 18.12.1975.

4. Defendant set up his title on the ground that (i) being a non-occupancy tenant, proprietary rights stood conferred upon him under the provisions of Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act); and in the alternative (ii) adverse possession.

5. Facts as alleged by the defendant stood refused by the plaintiff by way of replication.

6. On the strength of respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP 2-A Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession in alternative as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

3-A. Whether the defendant has become owner in possession over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession in alternative as alleged? OPD

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged? OPD

5. Relief."

7. Holding the defendant to be owner in possession of the suit land, on the strength of entries of mutation dated 18.5.1976 (Ext. DA-1 and Ext. DA) being the revenue record prepared under the Tenancy Act, trial Court, in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.7.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 497/1 of 1994, titled as Daulat Ram v. Chet Ram, dismissed the suit.

8. However, in the plaintiff's appeal, the lower appellate Court, in terms of judgment and decree dated 21.2.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 59-S/13 of 2003, titled as Daulat Ram v. Chet Ram, reversed such findings holding (i) the defendant not to be a tenant entitling him for conferment of proprietary rights; (ii) entries of mutation (Ext. DA-1 and Ext. DA) to have been effected without any order passed by a competent authority; (iii) defendant failed to prove conferment of proprietary rights in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act and as such (iv) the plaintiff to be the rightful owner of the suit land on the strength of a registered gift deed dated 8.12.1975 (Ext. PA).

9. Hence the present appeal which stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:--

"1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has wrongly held that civil court had jurisdiction even to determine the question of the proprietary rights under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, without there being any pleadings bringing the case within the exception? Has not the Lower Appellate Court misunderstood the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and misapplied the law especially the pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate court has committed grave error of law in ignoring the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, whereby it was imperative for the Lower Appellate court to have seen whether the suit as filed by the plaintiff-respondent was within the period of limitation for the reliefs claimed? Is not the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court erroneous and perverse whe