Failure to admit crucial evidence resulted in prejudice, necessitating remand for reconsideration.

1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 33 - XIII - 12RBT 8/13/12 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II, Amb, District Una, in Civil Suit No. 162/2007, was affirmed.

2. Appellants were defendants before the learned trial Court and the respondents were plaintiffs. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of land measuring 01-89-21 hectares, comprised in Khewat No. 371 min, Khatauni No. 861 min, Khasra Nos. 4197, 4202, 4204 and 4205 as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 situated in Up - Mohal Ram Nagar, Village Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (for short, 'suit land') and the entries in the revenue records to the contrary were wrong, illegal, void and contrary to factual position. A prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering in the suit land was also prayed. Further, a decree of possession of a site denoted by ABCD and EFGH in the site plan annexed with the plaint by removal of super - structure therefrom was also sought.

4. The suit was filed on the premise that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the suit land. The predecessor - in - interest of the defendants had manipulated the revenue entries and had got himself entered as a non - occupancy tenants against the factual position. The defendants were neither in possession of the suit land nor were ever inducted as tenants therein. The entry of tenancy and possession in favour of the defendants over suit land was incorporated without adoption of due process of law. It was also alleged that the consequential entry with respect to conferment of proprietary rights on the defendants in the suit land was also wrong and illegal. The authority of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, who had attested the mutation regarding conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the defendants, was also challenged on the ground that under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,1972 it was the Assistant Collector 1st Grade only, who was authorised to attest the mutation with respect to conferment of proprietary rights.

5. The defendants contested and resisted the suit by alleging that the predecessor - in - interest had been inducted as tenants over the suit land by the plaintiffs and their predecessor - in - interest. The entry to this effect was made in "Rapat Roznamcha Wakyati" for the year 1976-77. Thereafter, the revenue authorities, after due verification of facts, had entered the factum of tenancy of the defendants on the suit land, which finally culminated into conferment of proprietary rights under S.104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 . The defendants asserted that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land and had also constructed structure thereon and which admittedly was in their occupation.

6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 1A Whether defendants were not inducted as tenant by the plaintiff over the suit land, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether mutation No. 3017 attested and sanctioned by A.C. IInd Grade is wrong, illegal, and void? OPP
3. Whether change in revenue record is without the orders of competent revenue officer? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction