The courts affirmed the plaintiffs' continuous possession and rights over the tenancy land, rejecting the defendants' claims of sole tenancy due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2022 passed by Ld. District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Baijnath, District Kangra in Civil Appeal No.23-B/2018. Vide said judgment, the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra, HP in Civil Suit No. 44/2013, titled Ranjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhawani Parshad & Anr.

2. The present appellants were the defendants/appellants before the trial Court. The facts leading up to the present appeal are that the present respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of a 4/5^th share of the tenancy land comprised in Khata No.42, Khatauni No. 107, Khasra Nos. 142, 145, 149, and 169, Kitas-4, ad-measuring 0-28-41 hectares, situated in Mohal Kothi, Mauza Paprola, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, as per the Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 (referred to as the "suit land"). They also sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from dispossessing them or altering the nature of the land, and for possession as co-sharers, if the defendants/appellants succeeded in dispossessing them based on wrong entries in the revenue records. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that the defendants/appellants were non-occupancy tenants to the extent of a 1/5^th share in the suit land.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents averred that Tehku Ram, the common predecessor-in-interest of both parties, was recorded as a Gair Marusi tenant in possession of the suit land in the Jamabandi for 1968-69. They alleged that during the settlement, the father of the defendants/appellants, Baragi Ram (brother of the plaintiffs/respondents), wrongfully got his name recorded in place of Tehku Ram, excluding the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed they had been in continuous cultivating possession as non-occupancy tenants with a 4/5th share but were omitted from the revenue records. They stated that, as per the Jamabandi for 2008-09, only the defendants/appellants, along with Ramesh Chand and Kubza Devi (since deceased, leaving behind the defendants/appellants as legal heirs), were shown in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed they became aware of the wrongful entries in May 2011 when the defendants/appellants threatened to dispossess them and started interfering with their possession.

4. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections on grounds of maintainability, estoppel, valuation, cause of action, unclean hands, suppression of material facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, and jurisdiction. On merits, the defendants/appellants submitted that their father, Baragi Ram, was the sole cultivator of the suit land under the ownership of Pratool Chand and Jagtamba Prashad, sons of Shri Hiru, before the settlement. Baragi Ram alone paid rent/Galla Batai to the landowners, and after his death, the defendants/appellants continued to do so. They relied on the Fasal Girdawari for 1995 to Ravi 1999 to show their father’s possession. The defendants/appellants also argued that the original landowners were not made parties to the suit, rendering it bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.

5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, wherein the contents of the plaint were reiterated and re-asserted and those of the written statement were denied and refuted. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 27.08.2013 by the learned trial court:-

1. Whether the revenue entries of the suit land depicting the defendants/appellants as 'Gair Marusi Tenants' in the possessory column are incorrect, wrong, illegal