The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, HP, (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2002, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, HP (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld. (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 before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that they are owners-in possession of the land bearing Khewat No. 382, Khatauni No. 565, Khasra Nos. 200, 201, 205 and 206, measuring 0-42–66 hectares, situated in Village Jhalera, Tehsil and District Una, HP, as recorded in the Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadeed Sani for the year 1987-88 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), and the Mutation No.63 sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. A consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that land measuring 18 Kanal 08 Marla, bearing Khasra No. 596, situated in Village Jhalera, Tehsil and District Una, HP was recorded as Shamlat Taraf of Hukumat Hasab Hisse Jadi in the proprietary column. Shiv Dayal and Ralla were recorded to be in cultivation. Fattu raised a mango garden over the land. His name was recorded in the Bandobast Sani of the year 1863. The other co-sharers objected to the entry, and the Deputy Commissioner of Hoshiarpur, on 29.5.1963, declared Fattu to be the occupancy tenant of the land. An appeal preferred against the order was dismissed on 14.8.1963. The owners applied for partition of their land. The land measuring 18 Kanal 08 marla, was excluded from partition because it was in exclusive possession of Ralla and Shiv Dayal, sons of Fattu. Ralla died issueless, and his estate was inherited by Shiv Dayal. The name of State of Himachal Pradesh was entered in the column of ownership after the commencement of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974. However, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession. Bhagat Ram, etc., filed a suit against the plaintiffs in the year 1982 seeking a declaration. The suit was dismissed on 29.1.1987 after holding that the land had not vested in the Panchayat or the State. An appeal was preferred and was dismissed on 28.12.1989. Some observations were made by the learned District Judge regarding the tenancy of the plaintiffs. Mutation No.63 was sanctioned by the Revenue Officers, and the plaintiff’s name was deleted from the possessory column based on those observations. The defendants started interference with the possession of the plaintiffs based on the revenue record. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action, and the suit being barred by limitation and the principle of res judicata. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had not been proved to be in possession of the suit land as per the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, Una, HP. The possession of the plaintiffs came to an end on the sanction of Mutation No. 63 on 12.10.1990. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

A separate written statement was filed by defendant No.2, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and locus standi, the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs being estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the judgment passed by the learned