The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is strictly confined to substantial questions of law, and it cannot reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings or findings of the first appellate court that are based on evidence and not perverse.

Romesh Verma, Judge :

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, dated 29.11.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents/counter claimants was allowed and the decree for possession was granted to the counter claimants with respect to the suit land, and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 23.09.2017, dismissing the counter claim of the defendants/respondents, was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that the present plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants to the effect that the entries in the revenue record pertaining to possession in the name of the defendants are illegal, wrong and unauthorized. By removing the names of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, the defendants are in possession, however, the plaintiffs are legally and factually entitled to remain in possession and enjoy the usufructs of the suit land bearing Khata No.62 min, Khatauni No.162 min, Khasra Nos.383, 385, 386, plots No.3, measuring 0-31-05 hects, situated at Mohal Kahalian, Mauza Lanj, Sub Teshil Harchakian, Tehsil and District Kangra. It has been averred in the plaint that the suit land is entered in the ownership of the defendants and the same was previously owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The land was allotted to the defendants and thereafter the defendants became owner of the same. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in continuous possession of the suit land since time immemorial as co-shares. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants have not been ejected by any competent authority and the possession of the suit land has not been delivered to the defendants up till now. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants are in actual physical possession of the suit land on the spot.

It was further averred that the predecessor of the plaintiffs had filed a civil suit against the defendants in the Court of Sub Judge III Class(I), Kangra at Dharamshala for declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit (Civil Suit No.34/84) was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs.

Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1988 before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and the learned first appellate Court partially accepted the appeal preferred by the defendants and decree with respect to declaration was set aside and the possession of the plaintiff was found to be over the suit land. Further, it was ordered that the plaintiff and proforma defendants cannot be evicted save and except by due process of law.

The defendants moved an application for ejectment of the plaintiff and proforma defendants before the Tehsildar, Kangra (Assistant Collector 2nd Grade). The said application was dismissed by the Collector vide its order dated 03.10.1994 directing the defendants to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of their grievances.

As per the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants are very headstrong persons and have no regard for law and taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries, are threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land. The entries in the possession column of revenue record in the name of the defendants have been wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily made without any order of the competent authority. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction from the learned trial Court.

The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement along with counter claim. The defendants raised various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder etc. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied. It was stated that the def