IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 272 of 2000 Decided on: 1.7.2010 _______________________________________________________ Lal Singh and others ….Appellants Versus Hoshiar Singh and others ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) Vide order dated 23.6.2000, this Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the suit was competent in view of the fact that plaintiff was neither recorded as tenant nor was co-owner and statement of plaintiff Ext. DW3/C whereby he has denied his possession over the suit land? (ii) Whether the suit was competent without impleading original land owners of the suit land? (iii) Whether the plaintiff could file and maintain the suit in view of h is statement before Consolidation Authorities and orders of the Consolidation authorities a Ext. D/16 and Ext. D/17 whereby, tenancy in favour of appellant has been held valid?. (iv) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction in view of the dispute regarding tenancy? (v) Whether the suit was within limitation? Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. The suit of the respondents herein qua the suit property was decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from ousting them from joint ownership and possession of the suit land. 3. Facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Admittedly suit land was held by Sidhu, predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the lis as a non- occupancy tenant. Said Shri Sidhu died on 24.2.1964. The tenancy devolved upon his sons, namely, original plaintiff Gujjar, Lal Chand @ Lal Singh, Mandir Singh and Bichittar Singh. The proprietary rights automatically got conferred upon them under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder w.e.f. 30.10.1975. The plea of defendant No. 1 throughout had been that he had succeeded to the suit land on the basis of an ‘Oral Will’ of his father. His plea did not find favour with the learned trial Court as such the suit was decreed, as aforesaid and the appeal filed by the defendant- appellants was dismissed, firstly; on the ground that there was no averment made in the written statement as to when the ‘Oral Will’ was made by his father Sidhu and secondly, the tenancy land could not have been willed away, as alleged. The first appellate Court also took note of the evidence on record. Defendant Lal Singh stated that he held possession of the entire - 3 - property after the death of his father. The lower appellate Court rightly observed that it would not mean that other three sons of Sidhu washed-off their hands from the tenancy rights which was legally vested in them. Infact, sons of Sidhu had jointly inherited the tenancy and the possession of one can be said to be the possession of others. Thus, all the sons would be deemed to be in the joint possession of the tenancy land till they became owners by operation of law. Further Bichittar Singh one of the sons of Sidhu, who died, had already willed away his share in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5 Roop Chand, Basant Singh and Janak Singh, they would also be deemed to have been in joint possession as owners with the plaintiff and the appellants Lal Singh and Roop Singh qua his share after his death. Since the plaintiff had also inherited the tenancy land along with his brother, therefore, it would also not make any difference whether he was not recorded as tenant or co-owner to maintain the suit and the documents Ext. DW3/C, Ext.D/16 and 17 are of no consequence to deprive him from inheriting the tenancy. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the original owners of the suit land were not impleaded as party, therefore, the suit is bad. This argument does not hold any water because - 4 - the dispute is with respect to the inheritance of the tenancy land by the sons and the original tenant and it is not a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, the plea that Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred, is wrong. This contention therefore, fails. 5. Further, the suit was filed disputing the entries being wrong made in favour of the defendants. It is a recurring cause of action and the learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out as to how the suit was barred by limitation. There are concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below, with no perversity. 6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find in the facts and circumstances of the case any question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal merit dismissal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (Surinder Singh),J. July 1, 2010. (cm)