In the written statement, the appellant, however, admitted that the suit land along with some other land was originally under the tenancy of Kundan Singh, Gulab Rai and Jaishi Ram, but he denied the exclusive possession of Jagdarshan Lal since deceased , original plaintiff, over the suit land or that the same was given to him by deceased Jagdarshan Lal as a trustee or licensee.
281 of 1988 reversing the judgment and decree dated 19th of May, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nahan and the judgment and decree dated 30th of March, 1985 passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class Paonta Sahib, Dist.
102, 104, 208 and 277, as described in the Jamabandi for the year 1974 75, hereinafter referred to as the suit land is the land, which is under dispute.
After companying into force of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Reforms Act, 1953 in short the Act , the defendant No.1/appellant got himself recorded as sub tenant in respect of the suit land and on the basis of such entry in the record of rights obtained proprietary rights thereof on 23rd of March, 1967.
The case made out by the original plaintiff since deceased in his plaint, may be summarized as follows One, Randeep Singh, was the owner of the land measuring 83 bighas, 7 biswas companyprising in Khata Nos.
It was further averred by the appellant in his written statement that Jagdarshan Lal was residing in Uttar Pradesh and he had inducted defendant No.1/appellant as a sub tenant in respect of the suit land and that on companying into force of the Act, he acquired proprietary rights in respect of the same in 1967.
As numbered herein earlier, the original plaintiff Jagdarshal Lal died during the pendency of the suit and the present respondents in this Court, being his sons, daughters and widow were substituted in his place.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular Second Appeal No.
Bhanu Pratap Singh, son of Kundan Singh, was residing, at the relevant point of time, in Nigeria, whereas Jagdarshan Lal, son of Gulab Rai, was in Government service in Uttar Pradesh.
Accordingly, defendant No.2/respondent also pleaded dismissal of the suit So far as the case of the defendant No.3/respondent in his written statement was companycerned, he had advanced loan to defendant No.
He also pleaded in his written statement that a part of the suit land was sold by him for companysideration to defendant No.2, while the remaining part of the suit land was mortgaged by defendant No.1/appellant to defendant No.
2/respondent, in his written statement, pleaded that since he was a bonafide purchaser for value without numberice, it companyld number be said that he had number acquired right, title and interest in the suit land.
After the death of Kundan Singh, Gulab Rai and Jaishi Ram, the tenancy rights were inherited by their heirs and legal representatives.
The defendant No.1/appellant entered appearance and companytested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint.
Upon the aforesaid allegations made in the plaint, the original plaintiff since deceased had filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the suit land against the appellant and others.
Jagdarshan Lal since deceased who was the original plaintiff in the suit and in his place his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record came to know about the wrongful entry in the revenue record in the name of the appellant in 1978.
Upon the aforesaid issues being decided, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs respondents, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court in appeal.
Defendant No.1/appellant also created mortgage in respect of the remaining suit land in favour of defendant No.
The said land was under the tenancy of Kundan Singh, Gulab Rai and Jaishi Ram, sons of Sukh Dayal to the extent of 1/3rd share each.
Sirmaur , whereby the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs respondents was allowed and thereby, the suit filed by them was decreed.
1/appellant in respect of the suit land after verification of the revenue record and the possession of defendant No.
i , ii and v are companycerned, the Trial Court found these issues against the plaintiffs respondents, whereas, Issue No.
Accordingly, the above mentioned land was given in management to the defendant No.1/appellant Madan Kishore who cultivated the same for and on behalf of all the heirs and legal representatives of the aforementioned tenants.
After obtaining the proprietary rights, some land, out of the suit land, was sold by the defendant No.1/appellant to defendant No.
11/38 to 11/41 in village Amboa, Tehsil Paunta Sahib, Dist.
iii and vi were found to be in favour of defendant No.
1/appellant sought for dismissal of the suit.
1 at the spot.
A plea of adverse possession was also taken in the written statement by the appellant.
viii , defendant No.
Out of the aforesaid land, companyprised in Khasra Nos.
3 / respondent was held to be entitled to recover the amount from defendant No.
In respect of Issue No.
Defendant No.
Accordingly, defendant No.
Sirmaur.
2/respondent.
3/respondent.
3/respondent.
1/appellant.
1/appellant.
Plea of limitation and maintainability of suit was also raised.
iv and ix were held to have become redundant in view of the findings on Issue Nos.
i to iii .
