IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 505 of 2004 Reserved on: 25.3.2026 Date of Decision: 21.5.2026 Ramesh Chand ...Appellant Versus Jai Karan (deceased) through LRs & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

Respon dents No.1(a), 1(b), 2, 3 and 5 proceeded ex parte.

For Respondent No.4 : None.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kangra, H.P., (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the

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

same manner as they were awake before the learned trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rHise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that they are owners-in- possession of the suit land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint and the review dated 14.3.2000 of the Mutation No. 349 already attested on 15.6.1997 based on LR-V, File No. 1255, decided on 23.3.1999 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion having no effect on their rights over the suit land. A consequ ential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or interfering with their possession over the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiffs were non-occupancy tenants of the suit land. They became owners after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy Land Reforms Act. A Mutation No.349 was attested on 15.6.1997 to this effect. The defendants obtained a decision in File No. 1255, decided on 23.3.1999, without informing the plaintiffs and got the mutation reviewed on 14.3.2000. Hari Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, had neither filed any LR-V form nor was he entitled to resume the land because he already possessed more than 15 kanals of land in Khata No.22. The defendants started interference with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land.

Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction and maintainability, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their act, conduct and acquiescence. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the plaintiffs were entered as tenants of the suit land. It was admitted that Mutation No. 349 was attested on 15.6.199. It was asserted that this mutation was correctly reviewed on 14.3.2000 based on the decision on LR-V No.1255, Case No. 2124, decided on 23.3.1999, titled Hari Ram Vs. Gorkhu etc. The Mutation No. 349 was wrongly entered without considering the LR-V application filed by Hari Ram on 28 November 1975. The mutation could not have been attested during the pendency of the resumption application. Hari Ram, who possessed less land than prescribed, was entitled to resume the land. Plaintiffs have not filed any appeal against the order, and the present suit is not maintainable. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 21.2.2003: -r

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 23.3.1999 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion, as alleged?

OPP h3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reli