IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 269 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 21, 2011 Hoshiaru & Anr. …Appellants-defendants Versus: Leela Devi & Ors. …Respondents-plaintiffs Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendants regular second appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. 2. Civil Suit No. 74/2002 titled as Gorkhu vs. Hoshiaru & Anr. decided by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Dharamshala, in terms of judgment and decree dated 20.3.2006, stands decreed in the following terms:- “30. Judged in the light of my findings returned on foregoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed for possession of land measuring 0-05-60 hects. bearing Khata No. 10min, Khatauni No. 26 min, Khasra No. 1676 as comprised in jamabandi for the year 1997-98 situated at Mohal Upperli Barol, mauza Ghaniyara, - 2 - Teh. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, HP as no order to costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and the file after completion be consigned to record room.” 3. The findings of facts, judgment and decree stands affirmed by the lower Appellate Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 7.4.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala. 4. It is not in dispute that suit land originally belonged to one Sh. Buta Ram who mortgaged the same with Makholi, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. It is also not in dispute that Sh. Ajudhya Lal s/o Sh. Buta Ram executed a registered sale deed on 21.9.2001 in favour of Gorkhu, plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, defendants dispossessed him from the suit land. Hence he filed the instant suit for possession. Defendants have taken a plea that Sh. Buta Ram had not only mortgaged the land in favour of Makholi, but Makholi was otherwise independently a tenant in the suit property and, as such, by virtue of provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’), the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was illegal, void and liable to be ignored inasmuch as defendants being tenants become owners by virtue of the provisions of the Act. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues. - 3 - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession of the suit land, as alleged? ……OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time, as alleged? ……OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct, as alleged? ……OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit, as alleged? …OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged ? …OPD. 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged ? …OPD. 7. Whether Makholi father of defendants was inducted as tenant over suit land by Buta Ram erstwhile owner? …OPD 8. Relief.” 6. Issues No.1 & 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and Issues No. 3,4,5,6 & 7 were decided against the defendants. 7. Record reveals that the mortgage in favour of Makholi was redeemed by Ajudhya Lal and Roshni Devi being the son and widow of Sh. Buta Ram. This is evident from mutation (Ext.D-4) dated 20.4.1987. Record further reveals that during the period of redemption, Makholi had asked Om Parkash to cultivate the land and on redemption he also stopped cultivating and possession come into the hands of the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. There is nothing on record to show that after 1987 either Makholi or the defendants occupied the - 4 - suit premises as tenants. Though my attention has been invited to the testimonies of S/Sh. Kuldeep Singh (DW-1) and Hoshiar Singh (DW-2) to establish this fact, but however, careful and complete scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses would only reveal that plea taken by the defendants is dishonest and taken only with the purpose of otherwise defeating the legitimate claims of the plaintiff. Sale deed was not only got registered but entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiff to be in possession duly recorded. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal. 8. It cannot be said that the Courts below have erroneously appreciated the material placed on record by the parties or that the provisions of law have been mis-read, mis-interpreted or wrongly applied, thus vitiating concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 21, 2011 (rana)