Bhagat Singh v. Gandharv Singh, Lekh Raj, Tarsem, and Krishan @ Ram Kishan

All sons of Shri Pohlo, S/o Gaddi, Caste Harijan, r/o Village Saloh, Tehsil & District Una, H.P. ..Respondents. Coram Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. T.S. Chuahan, Advocate. For the respondents: ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral). None. Record received and heard on the point of admission.

As a matter of fact, the respondents herein had filed a suit against Chuhar Singh (since deceased), to the effect that the suit land was their non-occupancy and it was so recorded in the revenue record, thus, by virtue of enforcement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Rules framed there- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - under, they have become its owners. The entry of the father of Chuhar Singh named Shri Hulasa as (cid:145)Khud-kasht(cid:146), which appeared in the Khasra Girdawari in the column of cultivation w.e.f. Rabi, 1981 was wrong and illegal. It gave a handle to Shri Chuhar Singh to cause interference, thus declaration was sought with consequential relief of injunction.

Chuhar Singh aforesaid resisted and contested the suit and alleged that the suit land was in his possession by way of exchange, with Khasra Nos.2509 and 2510, which took place in the year 1980 and its entry was made in the year

1981. According to him, plaintiffs were possession of Khasra Nos.2509 and 2510.

Learned trial Court framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties led their evidence and at the end of trial, plaintiffs were held to be tenants at will of the suit land and by virtue of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as owners thereof and Rapat No.324 qua (cid:147)Khudkasht(cid:148) was held to be illegal and void entered at the back of plaintiffs-respondents and no exchange of the land as alleged was proved. Thus, suit was decreed as prayed for. - 3 -

Learned District Judge reappraised and re- examined the evidence in appeal filed by defendant Chuhar Singh and concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial Court.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, he preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of appeal, appellant Chuhar Singh had expired leaving behind his sole legal representative Bhagat Singh, who was impleaded as such by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2011 passed in CMP(M) No.1460 of 2011.

Shri T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 58(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, but this argument is raised only to be rejected for the reason that the revenue Courts(cid:146) as per said provision can take cognizance of any of the cases which fall in the group(s) so mentioned in Section 58 (3) of the Act aforesaid and the relationship of the tenant and Landlord is not - 4 - disputed, but this case does not fall within any of the group mentioned therein.

It is also argued that the learned trial Court wrongly interpreted Rapat No.321 dated 6.4.1981 Ext.DW1/A coupled with the entries in the revenue record, which culminated into subsequent entries Exts.D1 to D5 in the revenue record. In my considered opinion for that matter, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the rapat entry is not authenticated by the Field Kanungo or the Assistant Collector and the procedure meant for the change of the revenue entries was not followed at all, thus the change in the name of the father of defendant Chuhar Singh, itself from its inception was wrong and incorrect, therefore, subsequent entries are of no help to the appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find that the learned Courts below have misinterpreted or mis-appreciated the evidence on record in any manner. Therefore, the appeal is without any merits, hence dismissed in liminie, so also the pending application(s), if any. April 3, 2012. (Pds) (Surinder Singh), Judge.