V.M. Jain, J.@mdashThis Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendants-Appellants, against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu, whereby the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1990 passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed to the effect that he was a co-tenant in possession alongwith Defendants No. 1 to 7 in equal shares in respect of the suit land and had also become owner of the suit land alongwith Defendants No. 1 to 7 by operation of law to the extent of his share.
2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Shiv Ratru, Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and in the alternative for possession against Defendants Hirdu etc., with the allegations that one Jindu was the non-occupancy tenant in possession of the suit land and that said Jindu was the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7. It was alleged that said Jindu died in the year 1957 and after his death, the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 came in possession of the suit land and they had been paying the rent of the suit land to the owners for the use and occupation of the said land and earlier said Jindu was paying rent to the land owners. It was alleged that Defendants No. 8 to 16 were recorded as owners of the suit land in the revenue records and previously their predecessors-in-interest were recorded as owners of the suit land. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that after the death of Jindu, Defendants No. 1 and 2 had manipulated the entries in the column of the possession in respect of the suit land, inasmuch as the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 were not recorded as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land under the land owners. It was alleged that entries regarding tenancy of Defendants No. 1 and 2, to the exclusion of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7, were illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7. It was alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid entries in the revenue record, Defendants No. 1 and 2, had started disputing the claim of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7, in the suit land. It was alleged that the aforesaid entries in the revenue record in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2 had been corrected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 5.2.1986 and the Assistant Collector had passed the orders for recording the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 to be in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants. It was alleged that the Collector unauthorisedly and illegally had set aside the aforesaid order dated 5.2.1986 in appeal vide order dated 17.3.1987. It was alleged that the said order dated 17.3.1987 passed by the Collector was also illegal and void. It was alleged that the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 to 7 were in possession of the suit land in equal shares and the entries in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2 were illegal and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7. In the alternative, the Plaintiff sought a decree for possession in respect of l/8th share in the suit land.
3. The said suit was contested by Defendants No. 1 and 2 by filing written statement taking up various preliminary objections. On merits, the allegations made by the Plaintiff were controverted with regard to tenancy and possession of Jindu over the suit land. It was admitted that Jindu was the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7. However, it was alleged that at no stage Jindu was in possession over the suit land in any capacity. It was further alleged that Jindu had died in the year 1950. It was further alleged that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were the sole tenants over the suit land under Defendants No. 8 to 16 and their predecessors-in-interest. It was alleged that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had been paying rent to the land owners for use and occupation of the suit land. It was further alleged that on the applicability of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Defendants No. 1 and 2 had acquired ownership rights over the suit land. It was alleged that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 had no concern with the suit land and had never paid any rent to the land owners. It was alleged that the Assistant Collector had illegally passed the order dated 5.2.1986, which was rightly set aside by the Collector in appeal vide order dated 17.3.1987.
4. The Plaintiff filed replication. Various issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff holding that Jindu was a non occupancy tenant in possession of the suit land under the land owners. However, it was held that after the death of Jindu, only Defendants No. 1 and 2 were proved to be tenants and in possession over the suit land and had acquired rights of ownership over the suit land on the coming into force of the Act and that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 had failed to prove their possession over any portion of the suit land. Resultantly, the suit filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that after the death of Jindu, the Plaintiff and Defendants No; 1 to 7 were joint tenants in possession over the suit land. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.
5. Initially notice was issued to Plaintiff - Respondent No. 1 and the records were requisitioned. After hearing both the sides, vide order dated 2.11.1995, the appeal was admitted to a regular hearing on substantial questions of law No. 1, 2 and 5 formulated with the grounds of appeal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. As referred to above, the appeal was admitted to a regular hearing on the substantial questions of law, as formulated at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 5 with the grounds of appeal. These substantial questions of law, as formulated, are reproduced below:
1. Whether the presumption of truth which is attached to the entries in revenue record with respect to properties in suit for the period from 1959-60 to upto date has not been rebutted?
2. That whether the latest entry in the revenue record in favour of the Appellants negative the claim of tenancy of Plaintiffs?
5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit and the present Appellants are absolute owners in possession of property in suit?
7. The learned Counsel appearing for Defendants - Appellants raised the following arguments before me during the course of arguments:
1. Suit for declaration alone was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on
2. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction for correction of the revenue entries and to declare the status of the Plaintiff as a tenant over the suit land. Reliance was placed on
3. Jamabandies since 1955-56 are in favour of the Defendants-Appellants No. 1 and 2 and that the latest entries in the jamabandies will prevail and not the earlier entries. Reliance was placed on Ram Parkash v. Geeta Devi and Ors. 1999(1) S.L.J. 16.
4. Tenancy cannot be proved on the basis of the revenue entries. Reliance was placed on
5. At the time of the coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, only the Defendants - Appellants were recorded as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and on the coming into force of the said Act, the Defendants - Appellants had acquired ownership over the suit land in the year 1974 and the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 could not be declared as owners over the suit land alongwith Defendants - Appellants and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into this question.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiff - Respondent No. l submitted before me that the Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and in the alternative for possession and the suit as such was maintainable. It was further submitted that there was no material available on the record to show that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were inducted as tenants over the suit land. It was further submitted that if Jindu, father of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7, was the tenant over the suit land, then on his death, his legal heirs will succeeded to the tenancy rights under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which was applicable to the suit land at the relevant time since the suit land was part of Punjab till the year 1966. It was further submitted that there was absolutely no reason to discard the earlier entries in the jamabandies and/or place reliance on the latter entries in the revenue record, especially when the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 were proved to be in joint possession over the suit land alongwith Defendants No. 1 and 2 as non-occupancy tenants on the death of Jindu. It was further submitted that since in the present suit, the dispute is inter se between the legal heirs of the tenant over the question of title and not between the landlords and tenant, the Civil Court certainly had the jurisdiction to go into this question. It was further submitted that the bar undsr Section 104 of the Act is only with regard to the disputes between the landlords and tenants and so far as the present case is concerned, the present case would be covered under the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, wherein the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. It was further submitted that the lower Appellate Court had rightly decreed the suit of the Plaintiff.
9. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in the present appeal filed by the Defendants - Appellants and the same is liable to be dismissed. As referred to above, even though the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff, yet under Issue No. 1 it was found by the learned trial Court that Jindu was the non-occupancy tenant in possession over the suit land under the land owners. While coming to this conclusion, the learned trial Court had not only placed reliance on the copies of jamabandies Ext.P-2 and Ext.P- 1 for the years 1945-46 and 1951-52 respectively, wherein Jindu was recorded in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant under the land owners and was paying rent to the land owners, but had also placed reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Shiv Ratru and PW-2 Sunchu and had also placed reliance on the testimony of DW-2 Tulsi Ram, who had admitted the tenancy and possession of Jindu over the suit land. The learned Additional District Judge while considering the question as to whether Jindu was in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant, had also considered the entire evidence available on the record and after considering the same had come to a categorical finding that Jindu was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land under Tehlu, the then land owner. Furthermore, after considering the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, available on the record, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had failed to prove that they were inducted as tenants over the suit land by the land owner, namely Tehlu, as alleged by Defendants No 1 and 2. While coming to the aforesaid findings, the learned Additional District Judge had referred to the testimony of DW- 1 Hirdu, Defendant, who had stated that he alongwith Musadi, Defendant was inducted as a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land by Tehlu Ram in the year 1944. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that DW-1 Hirdu had stated that his father had died in the year 1950 and not in the year 1957 (as is the case of the Plaintiff) and that at that time he was aged 15 years. The learned Additional District Judge had also referred to the testimony of DW-2 Tulsi Ram who also deposed that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were inducted as the tenants over the suit land by Tehlu Ram in the year 1944. However, during cross-examination he had stated that Jindu had died in the year 1944. He also admitted that Jindu was the tenant over the suit land under Tehlu and after his death, he had only seen Defendants No. 1 and 2 residing in the houses in question and not all the eight brothers. The learned Additional District Judge also considered the evidence of PW-1 Shiv Ratru, Plaintiff and PW-2 Sunchu besides considering the documentary evidence available on the record. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that Jindu was recorded as tenant over the suit land under Tehlu as per the jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (copy Ext. P-2) on payment of rent and the same entry was repeated in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 (copy Ext. P-1). It was found that the suit land was measuring 12 Biswas over which there was abadi to the extent of 8 Biswas and the remaining 4 Biswas of the land was recorded as Bathal Abal in both of the jamabandies. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that in view of the aforesaid entries in the revenue records, the stand taken by Defendants No. 1 and 2 that they had constructed the houses over the land measuring 8 Biswas out of the suit land stood falsified, especially when even DW-2 Tulsi Ram had corroborated the version of the Plaintiff that Jindu was a tenant over the suit land under Tehlu and was also residing in the houses constructed thereon. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that there was no other evidence available on the record to show that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had infact constructed the houses in question.
10. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the entire evidence had also found that even in the jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (copy Ext.P-4), Jindu was recorded as tenant over the suit land and it was only for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 that the names of Defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared as tenants. It was found that upto year 1955-56 there were consistent entries in favour of Jindu and it had not been shown as to how the names of Defendants No. 1 and 2 came to be recorded in the column of possession to the exclusion of the other sons of Jindu, especially when Jindu was proved to have died in the year 1957 and the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 were the sons of Jindu. It was further found that on the death of Jindu in the year 1957, the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 had inherited the tenancy over the suit land in equal shares and not Defendants No. 1 and 2 alone, to the exclusion of others, without any material on the record in this regard.
11. I have gone through the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, available on the record, with the assistance of the Counsel for the parties. After considering the entire evidence available on the record, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly found that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 had inherited the suit property as non-occupancy tenants on the death of Jindu in the year 1957 and that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had failed to show that they alone were in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants even when Jindu was proved to be in possession of the suit land as a non-occupancy tenant and on his death, the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7, being his sons, had inherited the suit land as non-occupancy tenants. As referred to above, in the jamabandies for the years 1945-46,1951-52 and 1955-56 (copies Exts. P-2, P-l and P-4) respectively, Jindu was recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land under Tehlu, land owner, on payment of rent and there is absolutely no reason to discard the said entries in the revenue record especially when these are consistently in favour of Jindu, since deceased. After the death of Jindu in the year 1957, it was for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (copy Ext.P-5) that the names of Defendants No. 1 and 2, namely Hirdu and Musadi were recorded as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land instead of Jindu, who had since expired. Nothing has been brought on the record to show the circumstances under which the names of Defendants No. 1 and 2 alone were recorded in the column of possession in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land, even though Jindu, who was previously recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land, had left behind as many as eight sons i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 as his legal heirs. In the absence of any material on the record, in my opinion, Defendants No. 1 and 2 alone, could not be recorded in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants to the exclusion of their other brothers who had also inherited the suit land as non-occupancy tenants alongwith Defendants No. 1 and 2 on the death of Jindu. Copies of jamabandies Exts. D- 1 to D-4 for the years 1959-60, 1963-64, 1969-70 and 1974-75 respectively, and similarly the copies of Khasra Girdawari Exts. D-5, D-6 and D-7 for the period from 1975 to 1980, 1981 to 1985 and 1985 to 1989 respectively, showing the possession of Defendants No. 1 and 2 as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land, in my opinion, would be of no consequence and Defendants - Appellants cannot take any benefit of the same. Similarly, the oral testimony of DW-1 Hirdu, Defendant and DW-2 Tulsi Ram produced by the contesting Defendants, in my opinion, would not carry the case of the contesting Defendants any further, especially when there is no material on the record to show the circumstances under which only Defendants No. 1 and 2 had come in possession over the suit land as non-occupancy tenants to the exclusion of their other brothers i.e. Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly held that previously Jindu was in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant and on his death in the year 1957 all his sons i.e. Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 had inherited the same as non-occupancy tenants, in equal shares.
12. Besides the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence available on the record, as referred to above, there is another material piece of evidence available on the record in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 and 2 and the same has rightly been considered and relied upon by the lower appellate Court in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 and 2. Ext.PW3/A, is a copy of the statement made by Hirdu, Defendant No. 1 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in the proceedings for the correction of revenue entries. Previously, the copy of this statement was marked as mark ''X''. Subsequently the same was proved by PW-3 Rajinder Sood, Reader to the Tehsildar, on the basis of the summoned record. After seeing the summoned record, he deposed that the statement of Hirdu was recorded on 1.1.1986 and the said statement was signed by Shri T.R. Chauhan, the then Presiding Officer and he identified his signatures. He proved the copy of the statement Ext.PW3/A. During cross-examination, he deposed that the said statement was not recorded in his presence. He admitted that on 1.1.1986 the lawyers were on strike. I have gone through the said statement Ext.PW3/A. As per the statement (copy Ext.PW3/A) made by Hirdu (Defendant No. 1), in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu, in the proceedings for the correction of revenue entries, Hirdu, Defendant had categorically stated that at the time of consolidation, their father Jindu was in possession over the suit property and presently Shiv Ratru, Plaintiff, besides Hirdu, Musadi, Gaddi and Khatri, all five, were in possession of the suit land and were cultivating the same and that land measuring 4 Biswas was in his (Hirdu''s) possession, while on the abadi deh all five (named above) were in possession. He further stated that abadi was joint of all the above named five brothers and all the above named five brothers were in possession thereof.
13. From a perusal of the aforesaid statement (Ext.PW3/A) made by Hirdu, Defendant before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in the proceedings for correction of the revenue entries, in my opinion, it would be clear that Defendant No. 1 Hirdu had admitted before the Assistant Collector, in the proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari, that besides Defendants No. 1 and 2, three other brothers including Shiv Ratru, Plaintiff and two others, namely Khatri and Gaddi were in possession of the abadi over the suit land and the same was joint between them and they were jointly in possession thereof. Under these circumstances, the claim made by Defendants No. 1 and 2 that they alone were in possession over the suit land, in my opinion, cannot be accepted and has rightly not been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. At this stage, it may also be referred here that when PW-3 Rajinder Sood, Reader to the Tehsildar, had proved the copy of the statement Ext.PW3/A made by Hirdu, Defendant before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in the proceedings for correction of revenue entries, it was not put to PW-3 Rajinder Sood, Reader, that the said statement was not made by Defendant No. 1 Hirdu. Merely because on 1.1.1986, the date on which Hirdu had made the said statement before the Assistant Collector, the lawyers were on strike, in my opinion, the same would be of no consequence since it was the statement of Hirdu, Defendant which was recorded in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in the proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari. Similarly, even if PW-3 Rajinder Sood was not the Reader of Shri T.R. Chauhan, who was the Presiding Officer and the said statement was not made in his presence, in my opinion, the same would be of no consequence especially when PW-3 Rajinder Sood, Reader, had categorically stated that the statement was bearing the signatures of Shri T.R. Chauhan, Presiding Officer and he identified the same as he was conversant with the signatures of Shri T.R. Chauhan. As referred to above, it was not put to PW-3 Rajinder Sood, Reader that the said statement (copy Ext.PW3/A) was not made by Hirdu, Defendant on 1.1.1986 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade or that someone else had impersonated him before the Assistant Collector at that time. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Defendants - Appellants cannot get out of the said statement (copy Ext.PW3/A) made by Hirdu before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in the proceedings for the correction of revenue entries. I am further of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge had rightly referred to and placed reliance upon the said statement (copy Ext.PW3/A) made by Hirdu, Defendant before the Assistant Collector and no fault could be found with the same.
14. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge with regard to Jindu being in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant till his death in the year 1957 and thereafter, all eight sons having inherited the suit property as non-occupancy tenants, in equal shares, including the Plaintiff, have to be uphold, especially when these findings are findings of fact based on evidence led by the parties and as such, do not call for any interference from this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal, especially when nothing has been pointed out before me during the course of arguments that while giving these findings, the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence available on the record. Accordingly, I uphold the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issues No. 1, 2 and 3.
15. Once the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are upheld and it is held that Jindu was the tenant over the suit land till his death in the year 1957 and on his death the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 came in possession of the suit land as tenants being the legal heirs of Jindu deceased and that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (Appellants) alone could not be said to be the tenants over the suit property, to the exclusion of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7, in my opinion, the various substantial questions of law on which this appeal was admitted to a regular hearing have to be answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants-Appellants.
16. With regard to the first substantial question of law regarding the presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandi entries for the period from 1959-60 onwards, suffice it to say that the aforesaid presumption of truth attached to these jamabandi entries stood rebutted on the basis of the material available on the record, including oral and documentary evidence. As referred to above, the previous jamabandies for the years 1945-46,1951-52 and 1955-56 were in favour of Jindu, predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7, inasmuch as, Jindu was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land under Tehlu land owner on payment of rent. That being so, on the death of Jindu, the tenancy rights over the suit property held by Jindu shall be inherited by the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 7 jointly, in equal shares, being his legal heirs and that being so, Defendants No. 1 and 2 alone cannot be held to be the tenants over the suit land on the death of Jindu, to the exclusion of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the presumption of truth attached to the later jamabandi entries stood rebutted and the Defendants-Appellants can not take any benefit of the same, especially when nothing has been pointed out before me as to how and in what manner the later jamabandi entries from 1959-60 onwards came to be recorded only in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2, to the exclusion of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7, who are the other legal heirs of Jindu deceased. The authority 1999(1) S.L.J. 16 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, especially when the presumption of correctness attached to the later revenue entries stood rebutted, on the basis of the other material available on the record. So far as the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
17. In view of the detailed discussion above, the first substantial question of law framed with the grounds of appeal, is decided against the Defendants-Appellants and the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants at Point Nos. 3 and 4 are hereby repelled.
18. The second substantial question of law on which the appeal was admitted is as to whether the latest entry in the revenue record in favour of the Appellants would negative the claim of tenancy of the Plaintiff. For the reasons already detailed above, in my opinion, this substantial question of law also has to be decided against the Defendants-Appellants, since the presumption of truth attached to the later entries in the revenue record stands rebutted, in view of the other oral and documentary evidence available on the record and already referred to above. Hence the second substantial question of law is also decided against the Defendants-Appellants.
19. The third substantial question of law, which was framed at Serial No. 5 with the grounds of appeal, is as to whether the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the Appellants-Defendants were absolute owners in possession of the suit property. This substantial question of law was dealt with by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellant at points No. 2 and 5, while arguing the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it could not be said that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit or that the Defendants-Appellants had become absolute owners in possession of the suit property. As referred to above, the dispute in the present suit is not between the landlords and the tenants, for which the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. On the other hand, the dispute is inter se between the tenants, as to whether only Defendants No. 1 and 2 are the tenants over the suit land, on the death of Jindu in the year 1957 or that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 3 to 7 would also be the tenants over the suit land along with Defendants No. 1 and 2, in equal shares, on the death of Jindu deceased in the year 1957. The present suit filed by the Plaintiff, in my opinion, is certainly maintainable in the civil Court and it could not be said that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. The various authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants, during the course of arguments, while arguing point No. 2, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In
20. In view of the detailed discussion above, the third substantial question of law, which was framed by this Court and is at Serial No. 5 of the questions framed with the grounds of appeal, is also decided against the Defendants- Appellants and it is held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit and that the Defendants-Appellants have failed to prove that they were the absolute owners in possession of the suit property. Points No. 2 and 5 argued by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants are also decided against the Defendants-Appellants, for the reasons already recorded above.
So far as the question regarding the maintainability of the present suit on the ground that suit for declaration alone was not maintainable, is concerned, in my opinion, there is no merit in this submission as well of the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants. In
No other point has been urged before me in this appeal.
For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
