IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 65/1997 Reserved on: 10.3.2009 Decided on:19.3. 2009 Satya Devi and others. …Appellants. Versus Chet Ram and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 61-NS/13 of 1994. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land as detailed in the plaint and reproduced in the judgment of the trial court. It was stated by the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of the suit land. The suit was resisted by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake). The trial court decreed the suit on 18.12.1993. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever over the land in suit was passed. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. The same was dismissed by him on 11.12.1996. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. When the entries in the Revenue Records show that the land in suit has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, could the simplicitor suit for injunction as filed by the plaintiff-respondents be entertained in the civil court without impleading State of Himachal Pradesh as party, was the suit not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2. Whether the courts below could have entertained the suit regarding declaration of the title of the plaintiff- respondents which is specifically barred under the provisions of H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act? Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such suit is barred under section 10 of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act? 3. Whether the courts below ought to have relied upon the latter entries in the Revenue Record showing the possession of the Defendant-Appellants over the suit land, when there was no positive evidence of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff-Respondents or their predecessor in interest, what was the cause of such entries existing in the record of rights when the land in suit vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh free from all encumbrances whatsoever? 4. Whether the suit as filed by the plaintiff-respondents was barred by limitation and otherwise not maintainable in the form the same was filed? 3 5. Whether the writing exhibit PH has been worthy of reliance when the same was not proved in accordance with law? 6. Whether the entries in the revenue record have been misread by both the learned courts below which show the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-respondents as Gair Marusi Doam much prior to the institution of the present suit, could the plaintiff-respondents’ suit merely for permanent injunction without title or possession maintainable when admittedly on the date of filing of the suit no entry either of ownership or possession existed in their favour? Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. His further submission was that the latest revenue entries could not be discarded by the courts below. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that the suit land was in their possession and previously it was in the possession of their father and grand-father and it has been coming in their possession on payment of Galla Batai. PW-2 Sh. Moti Sagar has deposed that the disputed land is in possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants never remained in possession of the same. PW-3 Sh. Prem Chand has supported the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. He has stated that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiffs right from the very beginning. The 4 defendant Ram Dutt has appeared as DW-1. He has placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 1954-55 Ex.D-1. He has further deposed that the defendants are coming in passion of the suit land. In cross- examination he has deposed that he has not brought copy of any order to show that the revenue entries were wrong. The plaintiffs have placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 1938-39, 1942-43, 1946-47 and 1950-51. In all these copies of jamabandis in ownership column Hasad-Rasad-Khewat Istshanai Malkan had been recorded and in possession column Jeet Ram, Shakat Ram and Kanshi Ram alongwith Malti have been recorded as Gair Morussi Dom on payment of Galla Batai. Though in latest revenue entries, the possession of the land is shown in the name of defendants. No order has been produced or placed on record by either of the parties on the basis of which entry in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 had been incorporated. Though there is presumption of truth attached to the latest revenue entries, however, the same are rebuttal. The entries could be changed only on the basis of some order passed by the competent authority. It is borne out from the record that the father of the plaintiffs was in continuous possession of the land upto 1983-84. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have deposed that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The defendant Ram Dutt could not establish how in the latest jamabandi, names of the defendants are entered. The defendants have not established by leading any tangible evidence that Falumu had ever relinquished his tenancy rights. The defendants have failed to prove title on the basis of adverse possession. The defendants have not laid any foundation in their pleadings as far as substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are concerned. These questions also do not find mention in the memo of appeal filed before the first appellate court. The substantial 5 questions of law are to be borne out from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them. The plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the land and the entries showing the names of the defendants in the revenue record are wrong. The defendants have not placed on record any order, as noticed above, passed by the competent authority to change the revenue entries. The defendants have neither pleaded nor proved the plea of adverse possession. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*