Point of Law : Revenue record – Record of Right - Though these entries have been held to be having no legal basis yet these could be looked into for collateral purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant/plaintiff (for short ‘plaintiff’) filed Civil Suit No. 74 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba (for short ‘trial Court’) seeking following reliefs :-

“1. Decree for declaration to this effect that change of ownership right in favour of defendants vide mutation No.1196 dated 28-10-94 and subsequent revenue entries regarding 1 and measuring 1.18 Bighas comprised in Khasra No.349 Kh/kh. No.286/337 situated in Mohal Sultanpur Parg, Sach Tehsil and District Chamba is wrong, illegal, null and void upon the rights of plaintiff.

2. In alternative Decree for possession of land comprising of Khasra No.349 but if on the basis of Wong mutation, entries, the plaintiff is dispossessed during pendency of suit and not found in possession, in such eventuality suit for possession of land measuring 118 Bighas comprised in Khasra No.349 Kh/kh. No.286/337 as recorded in the jamaband for the Year 1991-92 situated in Mohal Sultanpur Parg. Sach Tehsil and District Chamba-HP.

3. Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be found entitled under the law.”

2. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and relief in the following terms was allowed:-

“15. As sequel to my findings on issues No. 1 to 7, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring change of ownership right in favour of the defendants vide mutation No. 1196 dated 29-10-1994 and subsequent entries in favour of defendants to be illegal, null and void and not binding on plaintiff. It is hereby ordered that SDO (C), Chamba before passing order of review shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and thereafter he would pass an appropriate order with regard to modification, or cancelling allotment in favour of the plaintiff under the P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968. As there is no iota of evidence that plaintiff has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit relief of possession is declined and suit to this extent is partly dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A decree sheet be drawn and the file, after its needful be consigned to records.”

3. The respondents-defendants herein (for short ‘defendants’) assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2006 (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007.

4. By way of instant appeal, a challenge has been laid by the plaintiff to the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 passed by learned 1st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2006.

5. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 24.04.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether there has been misreading of evidence oral as well as documentary by the learned appellate Court?

2. Whether the allotment/Patta issued in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. P.4, could have been cancelled without proving or establishing any breach of terms and conditions of the grant?

6. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of suit land on the basis of ‘Patta’ Ext. P-4 granted in his favour under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (for short ‘1968 Rules’). Records-of-rights were accordingly updated and entries to this effect were carried continuously from 1975-76 to 1991-92 in such records.

8. Plaintiff had averred in the plaint that mutation No. 1196 dated 28.10.1994 was attested by defendant No.2 surreptitiously at his back and based on that the suit land was wrongfully shown in records of rights to be owned and possessed by defendants. It