THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.233 of 2004 Reserved on: 04.08.2023 Decided on: 04.09.2023 Smt. Tulsa Devi (deceased) through her LRs & others.

…...Appellants versus Sh. Kamal Kant and another …...Respondents Coram: t The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the appellants: Name of appellant no. 1 Tulsa C Devi stands deleted vide order dated 08.07.2015 Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for appellants no .2(a) to 2(d) 3(a) to 3(e), and

4 to 7.

For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2016.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:

The present appeal is directed against the

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement

judgment and decree dated 01.03.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Una, District Una (HP) in Civil Appea.l No.

74/2000, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents (defendants before learned trial court)H was allowed and judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, District Una (HP) in Civil Suit No.68 of 1987, dated 30.03.2000, was set aside. (For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner, as they were arrayed before the learned trial court).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is in possession as a tenant and has become the owner of the land comprised in Khewat No. 508 min, Khatauni No. 763 min, Khasra Nos. R.33/1(4-0), R 2/1(6-2), R 10/1 (1-1) measuring 11 Kanals 3 Marlas and Khewat No. 508 min, Khatauni No. 763 min, Khasra Nos. R39/13/2(3- 12) measuring 3 Kanals 12 Marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84, situated in Village Ispur, Teh. & Distt. Una (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the change of entries in the Khasra Girdawari. and subsequent entries in the jamabandi are illegal, null, void and without jurisdiction. A conseqHuential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs by taking forcible possession of the suit land was also sought. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as a tenant on the payment of rent for more than 30 years under the defendants including their predecessor-in-interest. The Plaintiff was never ejec ted nor did he abandon or relinquish his tenancy rights. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff in lieu of the tenancy land. The defendants got wrong entries incorporated through Kanungoo in Kharif 1973 as Khud Kasht (self cultivation) illegally behind the back of the plaintiff without any notice to him. The change of entries in Khasra Girdawari and subsequent entries in the jamabandis are illegal, void and contrary to the law. The plaintiff became owner on the commencement of the H.P.

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff afte.r the change of entries. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to do so, but in vain. Hence, the suiHt was filed to seek relief, as mentioned above.

3. The suit was conotested by filing a written statement taking prelimina ry objections regarding lack of maintainability, the rbar of limitation and the plaintiff being estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the plaintiff was never inducted as a tenant by the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest. The Consolidation Authorities wrongly prepared the Misal Haqiat in the name of the plaintiff based on wrong entries recorded in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1964. This entry was recorded without jurisdiction. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The pla