IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 438 of 2011. Reserved on: 11.10.2011. Decided on: 21.10.2011. ________________________________________________ Ranjit Singh and another. … Appellants. Versus Tek Chand and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una in Civil Appeal No.102 of 2008 on 31.3.2011. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs” for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they alongwith appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for convenience sake) are owners in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - possession in equal shares of the land situate in village Nangran, Tehsil and District Una, measuring 0-01-84 hectares, bearing Khewat No.385, Khatauni No.433, Khasra No.2228/1 as per Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid Sani for the year 2000-2001 and the revenue entries showing the defendants to be in exclusive possession of the suit land are null and void. According to the plaintiffs, the common predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit, namely, Ghahi was in exclusive Hissedari possession over the suit land. He was succeeded by the parties to the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants in connivance with Patwari Halqua and other revenue officials and without any notice to the plaintiffs or their predecessor- in-interest, unauthorisedly got themselves recorded in exclusive Hissedari possession of the suit land. The suit land was depicted as old Khasra No.855, Consolidation Khasra No.504 and Settlement Khasra No.2228/1. 3. Defendant No.1, namely, Kuldeep Singh did not appear before the learned trial Court. He was proceeded ex-parte by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Una on 20.10.2005. Defendant No.2, namely, Ranjit Singh contested the suit by filing the written statement. According to him, he was the right holder and the inhabitant of village Nangran along with defendant No.1 and that they were in possession of the suit land. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Una framed the issues on 4.2.2006. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) partly decreed the suit and the plaintiffs alongwith - 3 - defendants were held to be co-sharers in the suit land and the revenue entries to the contrary were declared null and void. 5. Defendant, Ranjit Singh filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una. He arrayed Kuldeep Singh as proforma respondent. The learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 31.3.2011. Hence this regular second appeal. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the defendants, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, argued that both the Courts below have mis-construed and mis- appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. According to him, the suit was barred by limitation and the pedigree table has also not been appreciated in accordance with law. He then argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question raised by the plaintiffs. 7. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the defendants at length and gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the course below as well as the pleadings carefully. 8. PW-1, Tek Chand has testified that their Predecessors-in- interest were in exclusive Hissedari possession in equal shares of the suit land and after their death, they became owners in exclusive possession of the suit land. Defendants being influential persons, at their back in connivance with the revenue staff got the entries of the suit land, old Khasra No., Consolidation Khasra No. and Settlement - 4 - Khasra No. where of are 855, 504 and 2228/1, changed in their favour. PW-2, Sita Devi has testified that since long the suit land was owned and possessed by the parties in equal shares. 9. Ranjit Singh, defendant No.2 has appeared as DW-1. According to him, the ancestors of the plaintiffs never came in possession of the suit land nor was/is it being possessed by them (plaintiffs). In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they (parties) were having common ancestors Ghahi and said Ghahi was having two sons, namely, Banna and Kesar. He has also admitted that Hamira son of Banna was father of Dina Nath. He has further admitted that they (defendants) were sons of Dina Nath. He has also admitted that Thakur son of Kesar was father of Sohan Lal and that plaintiffs are the sons of Sohan Lal. He has also admitted that they (defendants) succeeded to the estate of Hamira, whereas, plaintiffs succeeded the estate of Thakur. He also admitted that the parties were right holders of the village since the time of their ancestors and they have inherited the suit land from their ancestors. He also admitted categorically that plaintiffs were in possession of the land inherited by them from Thakur. According to DW-2, Rattan Chand, he had seen the defendants in possession of the suit land. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the parties are right holders of the village from the time of their fore-fathers. He has also admitted that the parties inherited the suit land of their ancestors. 10. In the jamabandi for the year 1959-60, Ex.P-3, Hamira and Thakur, predecessors-in-interest of the defendants and the - 5 - plaintiffs have been shown to be in Hissedari possession of Khasra No.855, land measuring 0-12. The old Khasra No. of the suit land was 855 and after settlement, the suit land has been shown in Khasra No.2228/1. However, in jamabandi for the year 1965-66, Hamira is shown in possession of Khasra No.855 min exclusively and there is no entry in the name of Thakur in the jamabandi. The same entry has been carried out in jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, Ex.P-1. In this jamabandi, the entry of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest, Thakur was not carried out. There is neither any order of Civil Court nor of Revenue Court for deleting the name of Thakur from the suit land. Hamira and Thakur were the common successors of Ghahi. The entries in the jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission (AIR 1994 SC 227). Thus, plaintiffs being the successors of Thakur were entitled to inherit the estate of Thakur like the defendants were entitled to inherit the estate of Hamira. 11. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, neither any argument was advanced nor was any evidence adduced on this issue before the trial Court though issue No.7 was framed. The revenue entries in Ex.P-1, jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 were not incorporated on the basis of order passed by the Civil Court or the Revenue Court. It has not been explained by leading tangible evidence how the name of Thakur was deleted in the subsequent jamandies though the same was mentioned in Ex.P-3, jamabandi for - 6 - the year 1959-60. The plaintiffs were aggrieved by these entries when they were threatened by the defendants to oust them from the suit land. Thus, the suit was within limitation. 12. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the defendants has also failed to convince this Court how the pedigree table relied upon by both the Courts below was wrongly drawn. The appellants have also failed to convince this Court how the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the present case was barred. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 21, 2011. (sck).