IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 219 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025.

Sanjeev Kumar and others .....Appellants.

Versus f Bu Rani(deceased) through LRs and others …..Respondents Coram u The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the respondents: Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .

The present appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 07/XIII/2024/2007, titled Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. Bu Rani (deceased) through LRs and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

Division) Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1997 titled Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. Bu Rani and others, has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff, Giauno (now represented by his legal representatives),o instituted a suit for declaration that he was a jCoint owner in possession of the suit land, claiming a half-share derived from his status as a co- tenant. The plaintiff's case was that the suit land was originally cultivated by his grandfather, Kapuru, as a Htenant. After Kapuru's death, his son Atto continued as tenant, and upon Atto's death, the plaintiff and Taru (husband of Smt. Kesari Devi) jointly inherited the tenancy rights. The plaintiff asserted that after Taru's death, he continued to cultivate the land jointly with Taru's widow, Kesari Devi, and after her death in 1994, with her successors.

3. The crux of the plaintiff's claim was that he, along with Kesari Devi, had become the owner of the suit land to the extent of a half-share each under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff challenged the revenue entries, particularly from the jamabandi of 1966-67, which omitted his name as a co-tenant, contending that this deletion was unlawful, done without due process. He also challenged the subsequent mutations (Nos. 132, 137, 138, and 139) auttested after Kesari Devi's death, which recordedo the inheritance and sale of shares amongst hCer legal heirs (defendants No. 1 to 7), arguing that these transactions were null and void as they ignored his pre-existing joint ownership.

4. The defendants contested the suit, denying Hthat the plaintiff was ever a co-tenant. They asserted that Taru was the sole tenant and that the revenue records, including the consolidation records, correctly reflected this position. They took preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, lack of cause of action, locus standi of the plaintiff, estoppel, limitation, and jurisdiction. The defendants emphasized that the plaintiff had remained silent for over three decades, including during consolidation proceedings, and had never raised any objection, thereby acquiescing to the recorded entries. They maintained that they were the true owners in possession and that the registered sale deeds and subsequent mutations were valid.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 16-12-

1998:- u

1. Whoether the plaintiff was the tenant along with predecessor in interest of the defendants No. 1 to

7 as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession as co-

sharer in the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the revenue entries contrary to this are wrong and illegal? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit?