2026:HHC:36669 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 136 of 2008 Reserved on: 19.08.2026 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Mansa Ram (since deceased) through his LRs Basant Devi & others ...Appellant Versus Paras Ram & others ...Respondents _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Mohinder Verma, Advocate, vice Mr B.C. Verma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge, First Class, Kasauli at Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned trial Court) were upheld were upheld. (The parties shall 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36669 hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court against the defendants for seeking declaration that revenue entries showing the defendants to be the sole owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in para-3 of the plaint were wrong, illegal and void, plaintiffs and defendants were co- owners in possession of the suit land, and the defendants had no right, title or interest to interfere in the plaintiff's possession. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land was also prayed. 3. It was asserted that late Ruldu was the tenant of the suit land; he had two sons, Kirpu alias Kirpa Ram and plaintiff Mansa Ram. The pedigree table of the parties is as under: - 3 2026:HHC:36669 4. The inheritance of Ruldu was wrongly recorded in favour of Kirpu to the plaintiff’s exclusion. The defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession based on the wrong entries. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above. 5. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action and maintainability, and the suit being bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that Kirpu alias Kirpa Ram was the exclusive tenant of the suit land. The proprietary rights were also conferred in favour of Kirpu alias Kirpa Ram. Kirpu was paying rent Chauthai per Pedawar to the owner. Defendants succeeded to his estate after his death. The revenue entries were rightly recorded in favour of the defendants. Part of the suit land was sold to Sneh Lata to the extent of 2 bighas, Joginder Singh to the extent of 10 biswas and Gopal Dass to the extent of 6 biswas. Land measuring 2 biswas vested in the State of H.P. for widening of National Highway near village Koti. The 4 2026:HHC:36669 plaintiff had no concern with the suit land. Hence, it prayed that the suit be dismissed. 6. No replication was filed. 7. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 14.03.1996: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Relief 8. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined himself (PW-1) and Rati Ram (PW- 2). The defendants examined defendant No.1 (DW-1), Pradeep (DW-2) and Prem Dutt (DW-3). 9. Learned trial Court held that a copy of Rapat Rojnamcha No. 322, dated 23.04.1946 (Ext.DW-2/A) recorded the change in possession. This entry was reflected in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Ext. P-5) and subsequent Jamabandis. Kirpu Ram was inducted as a tenant during the lifetime of Ruldu. Kirpu paid the rent to the owners. The proprietary rights were also conferred upon Kirpu as per the law. 5 2026:HHC:36669 Hence, the learned trial Court answered issue No. 1 in the negative, issues No. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, issue No. 4 partly in the affirmative and dismissed the suit. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the entry in favour of Kirpu was changed as per the report (Ext.DW-2/A) on 23.04.1946. Thereafter, Kirpu was recorded to be in possession in the copies of Jamabandi for the year 1949– 1950 (Ext.P6), 1953-54 (Ext.P7), 1957-58 (Ext.P8), 1965-66 (Ext.P10), and 1970-71 (P11). The proprietary rights were also conferred in favour of Kirpu. The plaintiff had no concern with the suit land. There was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 05.03.2009: 6 2026:HHC:36669 1. Whether revenue entries changed without adopting proper procedure, mutation or order from competent authority are void? 2. Whether the tenancy can be brought to an end by mere change in revenue entries? 12. I have heard Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Mohinder Verma, learned vice counsel representing the respondents. 13. Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. There was no proof of the fact that the change in the revenue entry was as per the law. The plaintiff continued to be in possession, and the change in revenue entry had no effect upon the tenancy. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below be set aside. 14. Mr Mohidner Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that a copy of the Rapat Rojnamcha explains the change in the entry. This change was subsequently incorporated in the revenue record. The proprietary rights were also conferred upon Kripu. The plaintiff never challenged the conferment of the proprietary rights upon Kripu. Learned Courts 7 2026:HHC:36669 below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no question of law in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 15. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Substantial question of law No. 1 16. The plaintiff asserted that the estate of Ruldu was wrongly recorded in the name of Kirpu. This is not correct. The entry in the Rapat Rojnamcha (Ext. DW-2/A), dated 23.04.1946, mentions that changes were found during the harvest inspection in respect of Khasra Nos.12, 18, 30, 59, 66, 68, 71, 102, 111, 113, 114, 166, 167 and 255/2 amongst other Khasra numbers. This change was reflected in the copy of Jamandies for the year 1945- 46, and Kirpu son of Ruldu was recorded as a tenant on the payment of one-third share of the produce. This entry was repeated in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1949–1950 (Ext.P6), 1953-54 (Ext.P7), 1957-58 (Ext.P8), 1965-66 (Ext.P10), and 1970-71 (P11). Kirpu was recorded to be the owner in possession of the suit land in the copy of Jambandi for the year 1975-76 (Ext.P12), 1980-81 (Ext.P13), 1989-90 (Ext.P-14), 8 2026:HHC:36669 and 1994-95 (Ex.P-15). It was laid down by this Court in Amin Chand v. Bhagtu, 2003 SCC OnLine HP 7: AIR 2003 HP 161, that a change detected during the harvest inspection, incorporated in the jamabandi and continued for many years was not unauthorised. It was observed at page 163: 11. In this behalf, when a reference is made to Ex. PW2/A, and a copy of Rapat Rojnamcha Waquati dated 21-9-1945, relied upon by the plaintiff, it clearly indicates that during the harvest inspection, Tagirats (changes) in possession were noted by the Patwari Halka. He noted those, and these were entered in respect of different khasra numbers of village Kolka. Learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that the suit land comprises Khasra No. 1654 finds mentioned in it, i.e. Ex. PW2/A. It clearly shows that after noting the changes in possession found on the crop inspection, a report was made in the Rapat Rojnamcha Waqyati (daily diary). This is attested by the Girdawar halqua. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs seriously contested the so-called attestation. As, according to him, it does not bear any date. How it improves the case of the plaintiffs in any manner, learned counsel was unable to satisfy the Court. The whole thrust of his submission with respect to Ex. PW2/A was that this entry is unauthorised and, having not been made as required under law, is by itself a good ground to allow this appeal. Suffice it to say in this behalf that this entry continued to be in existence since 1945- 1946. The suit is admittedly filed in the month of March, 1988, when the consolidation commenced in the village and when the plaintiff claims to have come to know about it. The date has not been specifically mentioned. Reason is not difficult to find about such omission. If dates were mentioned, may be that plaint would have been rejected, being prima facie barred by time. 9 2026:HHC:36669 17. The plaintiff Mansa Ram (PW-1) stated in his examination-in-chief that Ruldu Ram died in the year 1956-57, when he was aged 5-6 years, which means that the name of Kirpu was recorded much before the death of Ruldu. Thus, the very basis of the suit that the estate was inherited by Kirpu to the exclusion of Mansa is not correct. Therefore, Learned Courts below had rightly held that the change in the revenue entry was properly explained, which subsisted for a long time and was not challenged by the plaintiff and this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 5. 18. Section 35 of the Punjab Tenancy Act deals with the relinquishment of the tenancy by a tenant holding for a fixed term. Section 36 deals with the relinquishment by other tenants and provides that a tenant may relinquish his tenancy by giving a notice verbally or in writing to the landlord or his agent declaring his intention to relinquish the tenancy at the end of the agricultural year. Section 38 of the Act provides for the abandonment of the tenancy and reads that if a tenant having a right of occupancy fails to cultivate the land in his tenancy for more than one year without sufficient cause, the right of 10 2026:HHC:36669 occupancy shall be extinguished. Therefore, it is permissible to the tenant to relinquish the tenancy or abandon the tenancy. Ruldu Ram never objected to the entry in the name of Kirpu during his lifetime even though he survived after such a change, which leads to an inference that he had abandoned the tenancy. Thus, the change in the revenue entry reflected the spot position and had not brought an end to the tenancy. Hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Final Order 19. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below; hence, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 20. The record of the learned Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th August, 2026 (ravinder)