Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surindera Devi & Others vs Kishori Lal & Another on 11 March, 2015
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
RSA No.501 of 2004
Date of Decision: 11.03.2015
.
Surindera Devi & others ..Appellants.
Versus
Kishori Lal & another ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Appellants: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Mehar Chand,
Advocate, for the appellants.
For the Respondents: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
In this appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellants have assailed concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below.
2. Appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. "Whether the Courts below wrongly interpreted Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jundu 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP 2
Ram [1991 (1) Sim.L.C. 223], which resulted in miscarriage of justice?
2. Whether the findings of the trial Court as affirmed are dehors the evidence on .
record?"
3. Plaintiffs, Kishori Lal and Chhajju Ram (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration against the defendants (appellants herein), claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land.
Also challenge was to the entries, illegally effected, in the revenue record, erasing their right as tenants.
4. Trial Court, based on respective pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff and performa defendant No.5 have been coming in possession of the suit land as non-
occupancy tenants and now become owners under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether sale deed dated 14.11.91 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 is illegal, void and without any right, as alleged? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, in the present form? OPD 1 to 4.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP 34. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 1 to 4.
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file this suit? OPD 1 to 4.
.
6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 1 to 4.
7. Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 are entitled to special cost, if so, to what extent? OPD 1 to 4.
7a. Whether the defendant nos. 4a and 4b are bonafide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration as alleged, if so its effect? OPD 4a and 4b.
8. Relief.
5. Appellants herein claimed the tenancy to have been extinguished by operation of law.
6. Appreciating the material so placed on record, including testimonies of the witnesses, trial Court, while deciding the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit as under:-
"In view of my findings given on issues No.1 to 7 and 7a, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has been coming in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP 4 possession of the suit land as tenant and become owner of the suit land detailed in head note of the plaint under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms .
Act is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants are also restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."
7. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.08.2004, passed in Civil appeal No.50 of 2002, titled as Surindera Devi and others Versus Kishori Lal & others, learned District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. has partly reversed such findings, holding as under:-
"In view of my findings on point Nos. 1and 2 above, the appeal is partly accepted and the relief of declaration as granted by the learned trial Judge is set-aside and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khewat No.2 min.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP 5
Khatauni No.2 min. Khasra Nos. 1080 and 1081, measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas, situate in village Bangarh, District Una, H.P. is hereby granted .
with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."
8. From the material on record, it is evidently clear that plaintiffs continued to be reflected as tenants of defendant No.5. Revenue record i.e. entries were r changedto jamabandi (Ex.P-2) evidences such fact. Abruptly such without adhering provisions of law or complying with the principles of to the natural justice. This action of the revenue authorities is held to be illegal and bad in law.
9. In this view of the matter, Courts below rightly held the jurisdiction of the Civil Court not to be barred under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Thus, it cannot be held that Courts below erred in correctly applying the principle of law laid down by this Court in Chuhniya Devi Versus Jindu Ram, 1991(1) Sim. L.C. 223.
10. Substantial question of law, as framed, essentially deals with the question of factual ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP 6 appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Court is of the considered view that no question, much less .
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
11. Be that as it may, revenue record reveals, which stands duly proved through the testimony of plaintiff (PW.1) as also Ashok Kumar (PW.2), that plaintiffs, as tenants, are in possession of the suit land since the year 1962. As such, on this count, no error can be found with the findings returned by the Courts below.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, present appeal is accordingly dismissed and substantial questions of law require not to be answered. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol),
March 11, 2015 Judge.
(Purohit)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:09 :::HCHP