IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 219 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025. Sanjeev Kumar and others .....Appellants. Versus Bu Rani(deceased) through LRs and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 07/XIII/2024/2007, titled Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. Bu Rani (deceased) through LRs and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 Division) Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1997 titled Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. Bu Rani and others, has been affirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff, Giano (now represented by his legal representatives), instituted a suit for declaration that he was a joint owner in possession of the suit land, claiming a half-share derived from his status as a co- tenant. The plaintiff's case was that the suit land was originally cultivated by his grandfather, Kapuru, as a tenant. After Kapuru's death, his son Atto continued as tenant, and upon Atto's death, the plaintiff and Taru (husband of Smt. Kesari Devi) jointly inherited the tenancy rights. The plaintiff asserted that after Taru's death, he continued to cultivate the land jointly with Taru's widow, Kesari Devi, and after her death in 1994, with her successors. 3. The crux of the plaintiff's claim was that he, along with Kesari Devi, had become the owner of 3 the suit land to the extent of a half-share each under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff challenged the revenue entries, particularly from the jamabandi of 1966-67, which omitted his name as a co-tenant, contending that this deletion was unlawful, done without due process. He also challenged the subsequent mutations (Nos. 132, 137, 138, and 139) attested after Kesari Devi's death, which recorded the inheritance and sale of shares amongst her legal heirs (defendants No. 1 to 7), arguing that these transactions were null and void as they ignored his pre-existing joint ownership. 4. The defendants contested the suit, denying that the plaintiff was ever a co-tenant. They asserted that Taru was the sole tenant and that the revenue records, including the consolidation records, correctly reflected this position. They took preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, lack of cause of action, locus standi of the plaintiff, estoppel, limitation, and jurisdiction. The defendants emphasized that the plaintiff had remained silent for over three decades, including during consolidation 4 proceedings, and had never raised any objection, thereby acquiescing to the recorded entries. They maintained that they were the true owners in possession and that the registered sale deeds and subsequent mutations were valid. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 16-12- 1998:- 1. Whether the plaintiff was the tenant along with predecessor in interest of the defendants No. 1 to 7 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession as co- sharer in the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the revenue entries contrary to this are wrong and illegal? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief. 6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the trial court's decree, the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellants argued that the trial court's judgment was erroneous and contrary to law and evidence. They contended that the father of Giano and Taru, namely Atto, was the tenant, and both sons inherited the 5 tenancy rights. The appellants stressed that the plaintiff's name was wrongly omitted from the jamabandi of 1966-67 without any order from a competent authority and behind his back, rendering the entries non-binding. 7. They argued that a tenant cannot be ejected except in accordance with law, and the defendants had not pleaded any relinquishment of tenancy by the plaintiff. The appellants maintained that the plaintiff was in physical possession of the suit land and that the trial court had misappreciated the pleadings, evidence, and the applicable law. They asserted that their evidence was reliable, while the defendants' evidence was inadmissible and false. The First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of the present Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgements. 9. The factual matrix of the case reveals that the original plaintiff, Giano (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives), claimed to 6 be a joint owner in possession of the suit land, asserting a half-share derived from his status as a co- tenant. His case was that after the death of his father, Atto, he and his brother, Taru, jointly inherited the tenancy rights, and he continued as a joint tenant with Taru's widow, Smt. Kesari Devi, after Taru's death. The core of his grievance was that his name was unlawfully deleted from the revenue records as a co-tenant during the consolidation operations in the year 1966- 67. 10. Upon a careful appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that while the plaintiff and Taru were recorded as joint tenants in the jamabandis up to the year 1960-61, a significant change occurred during the consolidation operations. The misal-hakiyat for the year 1966-67, which was prepared after consolidation, recorded only Taru as the tenant over the newly carved-out khasra numbers. This entry was made pursuant to the statutory consolidation process, and all subsequent revenue records, including those from the settlement of 1982- 83, consistently reflected only Taru and, after his 7 death, his widow Kesari Devi, as the tenant and thereafter as the owner. 11. The plaintiff, by his own admission as PW- 1, participated in the consolidation proceedings and even filed an application before the Director of Consolidation regarding a dispute over a passage, yet he never assailed the entries made in the consolidation record. His testimony, wherein he admitted that Kesari Devi was the owner in possession and now the defendants are the owners, coupled with his failure to lead any positive evidence of his continuous possession or payment of rent, severely undermines his claim of being a co-tenant in possession. The testimony of PW-2 was of no assistance to the plaintiff as it failed to counter the position that Taru was found to be the sole tenant during consolidation. 12. The plaintiff failed to prove that he was a joint tenant with Taru or Kesari Devi at the time the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act came into force, and thus, he cannot claim joint ownership. His claim, filed nearly 30 years after the consolidation entries were made, is clearly barred by limitation. The findings 8 of the learned Courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove his joint tenancy and ownership, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct, were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the law and warrant no interference. 13. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th October, 2025 (Susheel/T.B.)