Doctrine of merger bars re-agitation of civil court jurisdiction when Supreme Court grants leave and affirms, in tenancy dispute during proprietary rights proceedings; concurrent findings on title upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Heard.

2. All these appeals are being disposed of by common order as common questions of facts and law are involved.

3. The respondents herein in all the appeals filed two separate suits bearing Civil Suit Nos.28/1 of 2005 and 29/1 of 2005 against two separate sets of defendants. The predecessor- in-interest of the appellants in RSA No.448 of 2019 and 450 of 2019 was defendant in Civil Suit No.28/1 of 2005 and the appellants in RSA No.447 and 449 of 2019 were the defendants in Civil Suit No.29/1 of 2005.

4. The parties hereafter, for the sake of convenience, will be referred to by same status as they held before the original Court.

5. In both the above noted civil suits except for the defendants and description of suit land, other things were common. In Civil Suit No.28/1 of 2005 the suit land was comprised in Khasra No.300, measuring 1045 Sq. meters and in Civil Suit No.29/1 of 2005, the suit land was comprised in Khasra No.299, measuring 892.25 Sq meters.

6. Both the suits were filed on the premise that the suit lands were owned by the plaintiffs. They had family relation with one Shri Geeta Ram and hence, the said lands were given to Geeta Ram as licensee. Geeta Ram started cultivating the suit land comprised in Khasra No.299 through Arjun Singh, who was father of defendants in Civil Suit No.29/1 of 2005 and similarly, said Geeta Ram started cultivation of suit land comprised in Khasra No.300 through Sohan Singh the original defendant in Civil Suit No.28/1 of 2005.

7. Both the suits were contested by respective defendants by raising common pleas. The defendants had set up the plea of tenancy in their favour and were further claiming to have become owners by application of Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Their further case was that the defendants had already initiated proceedings before the Land Reforms Officer seeking conferment of propitiatory rights in respect of the suit land.

8. Learned trial Court framed identical issues in both the suits as under:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? ...OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law, as alleged? ...OPD
3. Whether present suit is not maintainable before this Court under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act, as alleged? ...OPD
4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present case, as alleged? ...OPD
5. Whether suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable, as alleged? ...OPD
6. Relief.”

9. While answering issues No.2 to 5, learned trial Court held that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the suit in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram , 1991(1) Shimla Law Cases 223. it was held that where the dispute inter se the parties qua their relationship as landlord and tenant had arisen during continuation of proceedings for conferment of propitiatory rights on the tenants, civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.

10. However, while deciding issue No.1, learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs had a valid title over the suit lands. It was also held that the defendants had failed to prove the plea of tenancy. Hence, the defendants were held to be possessing the suit lands without any right, title or interest. Nonetheless, in view of findings on issues No.2 to 5