IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.60/2025 Date of Decision: 24TH June, 2025 Bishan Dass and another .....Appellants. Versus Devi Chand (deceased) through LRs and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 14-D/XIII/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1 Dharamshala, District Kangra, in RBT Civil Suit No. 222/09/05/2003 was affirmed. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial court for convenience. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 along with proforma defendants No. 4 to 8, are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 223 min, Khatauni No. 396, Khasra Nos. 1591-1592 kitas 2, measuring 0-21-31 hectares, situated in Up-Mohal Mcleodganj, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") and have challenged the order dated 05.12.1987 passed by the AC II Grade with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. In the alternative, prayer for possession of the suit land is also made in case the defendants dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. 4. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit land is recorded in the ownership column as 'Shamlat' and in the name of defendants in the possessory column. The suit land had been purchased by the predecessor of the plaintiffs, Shri Khazana Ram son of Lawanu, from Makhauli vide registered sale deed dated 10.04.1924. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since the time of its purchase, and their predecessor was recorded as owner in possession. The defendants, being strangers to the suit land, allegedly procured an order dated 05.12.1987 passed by the AC II Grade, whereby they got the entries changed in the possessory column. The plaintiffs contend that the revenue record showing the names of the defendants in the possessory column is liable to be deleted as the order of the AC II Grade is illegal, null and void, and incompetent. The plaintiffs came to know about the illegal order in 3 the middle of July 2003 when the defendants started proclaiming that they would dispossess the plaintiffs and proforma defendants from the suit land. The defendants No. 1 to 3 allegedly got paper entries incorporated in their names by deleting the entries in the name of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 4 to 8 or their predecessors from the possessory column of the revenue record. The defendants were asked many times to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and not to interfere in their ownership and possession of the suit land and to get the entries in the names of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants restored in the revenue record, but to no avail. Hence, the suit was filed. 5. The defendants No. 1 to 3 resisted and contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, lack of cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, limitation, valuation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and jurisdiction. On merits, they submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs that their predecessor-in-interest, namely Khazana Ram, purchased the land from Makhauli is wrong, as Makhauli was not a co-sharer and did not have title over the suit land, which was recorded as 'Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari'. They contended that Makhauli had no authority to sell the land. It was further submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely Hoshnaki son of Shri Sheru, had purchased 18 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land from Smt. Ranuka in the year 1928, out of which 4 Kanals and 16 4 Marlas of land was from the Khata of her ownership and the remaining 13 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land was from her share in the 'Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari'. The share of Hoshnaki was depicted by Khata No. 47, Khatauni No. 149, 150, and 151, and Khasra Nos. 377, 378, 380, 385, 381, 382 min, measuring 13 Kanals and 14 Marlas. The land of Khazana, the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs, was depicted by Khasra Nos. 370 min and 370 min, measuring 9 Kanals and 14 Marlas. Hoshnaki was recorded in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 370 min, measuring 6 Kanals and a Marla as 'Gair Maurusi' under Shri Khazana, and Shri Khazana was recorded in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 381 and 382 min, measuring 6 Kanals and 16 Marlas as 'Gair Maurusi' under Hoshnaki. 6. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. They submitted that in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66, Shri Khazana, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was recorded as a co- sharer in possession of land comprised in Khata No. 86, Khatauni No. 198, Khasra No. 370, measuring 9 Kanals and 14 Marlas, whereas Shri Hoshnaki, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was recorded as a co-sharer in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. [number], Khatauni No. 199, Khasra Nos. 377, 378, 380, 382, 381, and 385 Kitas 6, measuring 13 Kanals and 14 Marlas. However, during the settlement, this position was not 5 reflected in the revenue papers. When the defendants came to know about this discrepancy, they approached the competent revenue officer, and the wrong entries were ordered to be corrected at their instance after due inquiry. It was further submitted that even after the correction, the land of the defendants had been decreased. The order passed by the AC II Grade dated 05.12.1987 was legal and valid, as it was passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs and other concerned persons and after making an inquiry on the spot. The defendants claimed that they have been in possession of the suit land since the time of their predecessor-in- interest and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiffs filed a replication, wherein the averments made in the plaint were reasserted, and the facts pleaded in the written statement, contrary to the plaint, were denied. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 05.04.2004: 1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 4 to 8 are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the order dated 05.12.1987 passed by the AC II Grade is illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs, in the alternative, are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit land if they are found to be dispossessed from the suit land or any part of it during the pendency of the suit? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 1 to 3 6 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 1 to 3 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 1 to 3 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 1 to 3 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 1 to 3 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and if so, what is the correct valuation of the suit property? OPD 1 to 3 10. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 1 to 3 11. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 1 to 3 12. Whether Shri Makhauli was not a co-sharer and had no title qua the land which was recorded as 'Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari', as alleged, and if so, its effect? OPD 1 to 3 13. Whether Hoshnaki purchased 18 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land from Smt. Ranuka in the year 1928, out of which 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land was from the Khata of her ownership and the remaining was from her share in the 'Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari', as alleged, and if so, its effect? OPD 14. Relief 9. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiffs examined Devi Chand as PW4, Rajinder Kumar as PW1, Amar Singh as PW2, and Rattan Chand as PW3, and tendered 7 documents before closing their evidence. The defendants examined Bishan Dass as DW1, Paras Ram as DW2, Veena Devi as DW3, and Vijay Kumar as DW4, and also tendered documents before closing their evidence. 10. The learned trial court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2015. It held that the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs, Shri Khazana, was in possession of Khasra No. 370, measuring 9 Kanals and 14 Marlas, and that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3 was not reflected in the possession column of Khata No. 370. The trial court further held that Khazana had purchased the suit land from Makhauli, as evidenced by the sale deed Ex. PW1/A, and that the revenue entries were changed without basis pursuant to the order dated 05.12.1987 passed by the AC II Grade. The trial court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favor of the plaintiffs, issue No. 3 against the plaintiffs, and issues No. 4 to 13 against the defendants. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed a first appeal, which was dismissed by the first appellate court, therefore the present second Appeal. 12. Heard counsel for the appellants. Perused the impugned judgment. 13. In the present suit, the plaintiffs' case rests on their predecessor Khazana Ram having purchased the suit land from 8 Makhauli vide registered sale deed dated 10.04.1924 (Ex. PW1/A) and their continuous possession since then, while challenging the revenue order dated 05.12.1987 passed by the AC II Grade which altered possessory entries in favor of the defendants as being illegal and without jurisdiction. 14. The defendants counter that Makhauli had no authority to sell the land recorded as 'Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari' and that their predecessor Hoshnaki had purchased part of the land from Smt. Renuka in 1928, relying on the 1987 revenue order to justify their possession. The evidence establishes through Ex. PW1/A that Khazana Ram validly acquired the land from Makhauli, with subsequent revenue records (Ex. D8, D9, P2, P3) confirming plaintiffs' possession over Khasra Nos. 1591 & 1592 carved out from Khasra No. 370, while the defendants failed to produce any title document proving Hoshnaki's ownership or explaining their acquisition of rights over the plaintiffs' land. Their reliance on the 1987 revenue order is legally untenable as the AC II Grade lacked jurisdiction to alter entries involving title disputes, a principle affirmed in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ved Parkash (1992 PLJ 539) which holds that revenue authorities cannot correct jamabandi entries except for clerical errors. 15. The defendants' claim of an exchange of possession between the predecessors lacks evidentiary support, and their failure to file a counterclaim or produce the alleged 1928 sale deed 9 in their Favour further weakens their case. Since the plaintiffs have proved their title through Ex. PW1/A and demonstrated continuous possession through revenue records, while the defendants' claim rests solely on an invalid revenue order, both the courts below have correctly applied the law regarding the limited powers of revenue authorities to alter entries affecting title, making the appeal devoid of merit. 16. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 24th June 2025 (Tarun/T.B)