Under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, a tenant cannot relinquish tenancy rights in favour of a private individual; such relinquishment is legally void. Furthermore, a declaratory decree acts in personam and does not bind persons who were not parties to the litigation.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration that they and proforma defendant are joint owners in possession of the suit land mentioned in para one of the plaint, and the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 53 of 1995 is collusive and not binding on their rights. A consequential relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that Chaitru, son of Dayal, was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant of the suit land. He was in possession of the suit land on the appointed day and became the owner after the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Plaintiffs and pro forma defendant are the legal heirs of Chaitru. The defendant, in connivance with the previous landowners, filed a Civil Suit No. 53 of 1995 before the Court of the learned Sub Judge, Court No. 3, Mandi, H.P., which was decreed on the admission made by the landowners. The plaintiffs and pro forma defendant were not arrayed as parties to the previous suit. The defendant started interfering with the suit land based on the decree. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and locus standi, the suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, the suit being barred by the principle of res judicata and limitation, and the plaint having not been verified as per the law. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the defendant used to cultivate the land and pay rent to the landlord during Chaitru’s lifetime. Chaitru relinquished his tenancy rights in the defendant’s favour with the consent of the landowners during his lifetime. Mohan, one of the landowners, was succeeded by his widow, Leela Devi and two sons, Krishan Lal and Subhash. The proprietary rights cannot be conferred when the land owner is a widow. The defendant had filed the previous suit against the landowners because they were interfering with his possession. The suit was decreed in the defendant’s favour. The present suit has been filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 8.12.1999: -

1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the decree passed in Suit No.53 of 1995 passed by Court No.II, Mandi is collusive, illegal and not affecting the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

8. Relief.

The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1, Tulki Devi (PW1) and Puran (PW2). The defendant no. 2, examined himself (DW1) and Brikam (DW2).

The learned Trial Court held that initially, Chaitru was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record; however, this entry was changed in favour of defendant No.2. He was also declared a non-occupancy tenant in a suit filed by him. The previous suit was not collusive. The plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession on th