Both the trial companyrt and the appellate companyrt, accepted the plaintiffs case and companycurrently held that Moti was number a sub tenant and hence, the order passed by the Revenue Officer in his favour under Section 27 4 of the Act was without jurisdiction.
The present suit was filed by Sham Sunder challenging the aforesaid orders on the allegation that Moti was merely a labourer employed by him and he never cultivated the disputed land and he, therefore, was number entitled to the acquisition of the proprietory right under Section 27 4 of the Act.
The defendant respondent, Moti, alleging to be a sub tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits under Section 27 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Suit was resisted by the defendant.
The claim of Moti was accepted, amount of companypensation payable under Section 27 4 of the Act was determined by the Compensation Officer and companysequential orders were passed in his favour.
The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt in favour of the plaintiffs appellants, and dismissing their suit, on the ground of being barred by limitation.
Notice was issued to Sham Sunder which according to his case was number served on him.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1990 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Mahajan and Ashok Grover for the Appellants.
2225 of 1991.
1 and the grand father of the appellants No.2 and 3.
J. Special leave is granted.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA.
134 of 1979.
The subject matter of the present case is agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh belonging to one Sham Sunder, the original plaintiff since dead, who was the father of the appellant No.
