PUSHAP RAJ vs KHOOB RAM and others

2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No. 166 of 2008
Reserved on: 22.06.2026
Date of Decision: 06.07.2026
Pushap Raj & Ors ...Appellants
Versus
Khoob Ram & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Appellants : Mr Mohinder Verma, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Mr Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
For respondents No.3 to 10 : Ms Mamta Bhatwan, Advocate.
None for respondents No. 2(a) and 2(b).
Name of respondent No.2(c) stands deleted vide order dated
18.07.2011
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and decree dated 09.01.2008 passed by learned Additional
District Judge Mandi camp at Karsog, (learned Appellate Court)
vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004 passed by
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog District, Mandi H.P
(learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall 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 suit before the learned Trial
Court against the defendants for seeking a declaration that he is
the owner in joint possession with defendant no. 1 of the suit
land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint to the extent of half
share, and the entry in the name of defendant no. 1 showing him
to be the owner of the whole share is null and void. A
consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land or
creating any charge over it was also sought. It was pleaded that
the plaintiff is the owner of the half share of the suit land. The
defendant no. 1 filed an application for correction of revenue
entries before Assistant Collector First Grade, Karsog, against
Achhru, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and others.
Assistant Collector First Grade wrongly ordered that defendant
no. 1 be recorded as a non-occupancy tenant of the suit land.
The defendant no. 1 never came into possession, and the order is
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
bad. Defendant No. 1 was claiming a right based on the entries
made in his favour. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief
mentioned above.
3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement,
taking preliminary objection regarding the suit being barred by
limitation, the plaintiff being estopped from filing the suit by
his act and conduct, the suit being bad for misjoinder and non-
joinder of the parties, the plaintiff being out of possession and
not entitled to maintain a suit for declaration, the suit having
not been properly valued for the court fees and jurisdiction, and
the Court having no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The
contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that Achhru
was the owner of the suit land. It was asserted that the suit land
was in the ownership of Luharu, Parsu and their sister Ghogli.
Luharu and Parsu gave the suit land to defendant no. 1 for
cultivation on the payment of the rent. The defendant no. 1 used
to pay rent to Luharu till 1972- 1973 and thereafter to Parsu.
Defendant no. 1 filed an application for correction of the
revenue entries. The Field Kannungo conducted a detailed
inquiry and found the defendant no. 1 to be in possession as a
non-occupancy tenant. Parsu had also executed a will of his
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
share in favour of defendant no. 1. The suit was filed without any
basis. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. A replication denying the contents of the written
statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.
5. The following issues were framed by the learned
Trial Court on 03.07.2003:
Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession to the extent
1.
of half share in the suit land? OPP
2. Whether the order passed by Assistant Collector First
Grade, Karsog, dated 02.05.1994 in file No.9 is illegal,
null and void?OPP
3. Whether the revenue entries showing the defendant No.1
as the exclusive owner in possession are illegal, null and
void?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff or his grandfather never inducted
the defendant No.1 as tenant in the suit land? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of joint
possession in the suit land?OPP
6. Whether the mutation No. 98 dated 28.10.2002,
conferring the proprietary rights on the defendant No.1
under Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,
is liable to be set aside?OPP
7. Whether this suit is time-barred?OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by
his act, conduct and deed?OPD
9. Whether this suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder
of necessary parties?OPD
10. Whether this suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is
out of possession?OPD
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
11. Whether this suit is not properly valued for the purpose
of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
12. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present
suit? OPD
13. Whether the defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant by
plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest and proprietary
rights has been rightly entered?OPD
14. Relief.
6. The parties were called upon to produce the
evidence, and plaintiff examined himself (PW1), the defendant
no. 1 examined himself (DW1), Narad Ram (DW2) and Sant Ram
(DW3).
7. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit,
and his legal representatives were brought on record.
8. Learned Trial Court held that Defendant no. 1 had
applied for the correction of the revenue entries in his favour.
The suit land was owned by Parsu and Ghogli. Most of the share
of Ghogli was inherited by Achhru, who executed a Will in
favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was not inducted as a
tenant. The column of rent does not mention anything, and the
person aggrieved by the revenue entries was competent to file
the suit based on his title. Hence, the learned Trial Court
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
answered issue Nos. 1 to 6 in the affirmative, issue Nos. 7 to 13 in
the negative and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
by the learned Trial Court, the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 filed
an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional District
Judge, Mandi, camp at Karsog (learned Appellate Court). The
Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court that Luharu was an occupancy tenant of the
suit land who became the owner after the commencement of the
HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The suit land was inherited
by Parsu and Ghogli to the extent of a half share each. The share
of Ghogli was inherited by Achhru, who had bequeathed his half
share in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 or his father was
never inducted as a tenant by the predecessors-in-interest of
the plaintiff or by Luharu. He had never paid any rent to Luharu.
The entry in favour of defendant no. 1 was incorrect. There was
no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees
passed by learned Courts below, the legal heirs of the defendant
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
No. 1 have filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the
following substantial questions of law on 01.06.2010:
1. Whether the subject matter of dispute regarding the
claim of tenancy by the defendant over the suit land could
not be adjudicated upon by the civil court, and the orders
regarding conferment of ownership rights could not be
interfered with?
2. Whether the plaintiff, having raised a plea of acquiring
title by virtue of a will, tenancy and adverse possession
being mutually destructive, could not be entertained.
11. I have heard Mr Mohinder Verma, learned counsel
for the appellants, Mr Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and Ms Mamta Bhatwan, learned counsel for respondents
No.3 to 10.
12. Mr Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for the
appellants, submitted that the order was passed by the Land
Reforms Officer, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set
aside the order passed by the competent authority. The plaintiff
claimed that he had become the owner by way of the Will
executed by Achhru, and that he was a tenant of the suit land.
Both these pleas contradicted each other because the tenancy
rights cannot be bequeathed by way of a Will. The learned courts
below failed to appreciate this aspect. Hence, he prayed that the
present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. He relied upon
the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1. Gopal Krishan vs. Jagtamba Parsad and others
2002 (1) Shim. LC 132.
2. State of Rajasthan and others vs. Shiv Dayal
and another (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 637.
3. R. Suseela Devi vs. Kerala Public Service
Commission (1998) SCC 242.
4. Dharmi vs. Jania and Ors. Latest HLJ 2011 (HP)
3.
5 . R. Ravindra Reddy and others vs. H. Ramaiah
Reddy and others (2010) 2 SCC 214.
13. Mr Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for respondent no. 1,
submitted that both the learned Courts below have concurrently
held that the defendant no. 1 had not paid any rent to the
owners. Mere entry of a person to be in possession without the
payment of rent was not sufficient to confer the rights of
ownership upon a person. This Court should not interfere with
the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts
below. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
He relied upon the judgments in Nirmala Devi and others vs. Pyar
Chand and others, RSA No. 328 of 2005, decided on 22.05.2006,
Varinder Kumar vs. Hajra & others 2024:HHC:6713 and State of H.P
and Ors vs. Ajay Vij and others 2011:HHC:464 in support of his
submissions.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
14. 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 :
15. Defendant No.1 filed an application for the correction
st
of the revenue entries before Assistant Collector 1 Grade. He
claimed in his application (Ext.P3) that he was in possession of
the land for about 25 years. Therefore, an entry should be made
in his favour. Learned Assistant Collector First Grade held vide
order dated 02.05.1994 (Ext.PF) that the defendant no. 1 was
found to be in possession, and the report of the field agency
recommended that the name of defendant no. 1 be recorded in
the column of possession. Defendant No. 1 was found to be in
possession for about 30 years. Therefore, his name will be
recorded as in possession.
16. It is apparent from the order passed by the learned
st
Assistant Collector 1 Grade that the defendant no. 1 had filed an
application to incorporate his name in the column of
possession, and this claim was accepted by the learned
st
Assistant Collector 1 Grade. The defendant no. 1 never claimed
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
to be a tenant of the suit land, or the conferment of proprietary
rights in terms of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.
17. A full Bench of this Court held in Chuhniya Devi vs.
Jindu Ram 1991 (1) Shim. LC 223 that any person aggrieved by an
entry in the record of right is entitled to institute a suit for
seeking a declaration of his right, and the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court to adjudicate such a claim is not barred. It was
observed:
“A look at Chapter IV would reveal that any dispute
relating to the record-of-rights envisaged by section 32,
or its preparation or revision under the succeeding
provisions, is to be determined by the Revenue Officer
under section 37 subject to the provisions of section 38
The Revenue Officer has Sarily to find out as to who is in
possession of the property to which the Disputes relates
He can do so on his own motion or on the application of
any party invested- The enquiry which the Revenue
Officer makes is in connection with the entries in respect
of the matters about which it is to be made n terms of
section 32. In other words, enquiry about the persons
who as landowners, tenants or assignees of land revenue
receive any of the Ss profits in the estate, or who are
entitled to the produce of the estate or to occupy land
therein..; the nature and extent of the interests of these
persons and the conditions and liabilities attaching
thereto; and the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or other
payments due from and to each of those persons and to
the Government; a statement of customs respecting
rights and liabilities in the estate.
6 The Revenue Officer, on the basis of his decision, is to
direct that the person, found by a summary enquiry as
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
best entitled to the property, be put in possession thereof
and an entry in accordance with his order be made in the
records of right. The direction so made is subject to any
decree or order which may subsequently be passed by any
Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. An entry made in the record-of-rights in accordance
with law is presumed to be true, until the contrary is
proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor,
under section 45. The succeeding section 46 provides
that
"If any person considers himself aggrieved as to
any right of which he is in possession by an entry in
a record-of-rights or in a periodical record, he may
institute a suit for a declaration of his right under
Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963."
8. Section 47 enables the Financial Commissioner to
make Rules, inter alia, for the survey of land so far as
may be necessary for the preparation and correction of
the records and registers and for the conduct of inquiries
by the Revenue Officer under Chapter IV.
9. Chapter II provides for the Classes of Revenue Officers,
their powers, administrative control over them, as well
as for appeal from and the review and revision of the
orders passed by Revenue Officers.
10. Section 14 deals with appeals from orders of an
Assistant Collector to the Collector and from the orders of
the Collector to the Commissioner, and where the order
is made by the Commissioner, to the Financial
Commissioner. It, however, does not contemplate a
second appeal. Section 16 provides for review of an order
by a Revenue Officer in certain circumstances and lays
down that no appeal shall lie from an order refusing to
review or ' confirming on review a previous order. Power
to revise proceedings of Revenue Officers is vested in the
Financial Commissioner as also in the Commissioner or
the Collector in certain circumstances under section 17.
11. From the provisions noticed by us, it is clear that the
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
matters which are entrusted specifically to a Revenue
Officer by or under the Act are excluded from the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. But the exclusion, as is
evident from the opening part of section 171, is "except as
otherwise provided by this Act.'
12. Stated more precisely, the position is that though a
civil court cannot give any direction, amongst others,
about correction of any entry in a record-of-rights,
periodical' register of mutation or for framing of a
record-of-rights or annual record or the preparation,
signing or attestation of any of the documents included
in the record, any decision which it may record in respect
of a direction given by a Revenue Officer under sub-
section (2) of section 37 relating to the question as to
who is in possession of a property to which the dispute
relates or is the person best entitled to it as well as about
any right under which a person is in possession, it will
have to be given effect to in the record-of-rights by the
Revenue Officer. This is more than clear from what is
provided in section 37 (3) and section 46. The finality of
the decision of the Revenue Officer is expressly made
subject to a decision by the Civil Court by these
provisions. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in matters
falling within the ambit of these provisions, is not
excluded. Instead, it has been expressly preserved.”
18. The full bench answered the reference as under:
Our answer, therefore, is:
(a) that an order made by the competent authority under
the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge
before a civil court to the extent that it relates to matters
falling within the ambit of section 37 (3) and section 46
of that Act ;
19. Therefore, it is apparent from the perusal of the
judgment of the full Bench of this Court that the jurisdiction of
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

13
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
the Civil Court to adjudicate the question of title is not barred
when an order has been passed by the revenue authorities under
the provisions of the HP Land Revenue Act. In the present case,
an order was also passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade
under the provisions of the HP Land Revenue Act, and the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred.
20. A copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997–98 (Ext.PC)
shows that Puran Chand, defendant no. 1, was recorded to be a
non-occupancy tenant. It was submitted that the entry of a
non-occupancy tenant will show that the defendant no. 1 is a
tenant, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the
question of tenancy is barred. This submission cannot be
accepted. The column of rent in the copy of the jamabandi does
not mention any rent being paid by the defendant no. 1. It was
laid down by this Court in Telu Ram Versus Hari Kumar ILR 1975
HP 464 that it is a usual practice of the revenue authorities to
record a person in possession as non-occupancy. It was
observed:
“Mere entry as a non-occupancy tenant does not entitle a
person to claim the right of the tenancy because it is a
usual practice that whenever a person is found in
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

14
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
possession, whether legal or illegal, of any land, the
revenue officers invariably make such an entry.”
21. A similar view was taken in Bhagat Ram v. Brahma
Nand, 2010 SCC OnLine HP 116 , wherein it was observed: -
“In Maman Singh v. The Resident Magistrate, Gohana and
others, 1965. Vol.LXVII, PLR 161 , The Punjab High Court
held that the question of whether a person is a tenant or
not has to be decided not by looking at the column of
cultivation of the Jamabandi because that column only
relates to the name of the person in occupation,
irrespective of the capacity in which he is occupying the
land. It was held that tenancy must be determined with
reference to the entry made in the column of rent.
In Rulhu Ram v. Than Singh and others, 1966, Vol.LXVIII,
PLR 866 held that the revenue entries, when they find a
person in possession, normally enter his name as a
tenant irrespective of the fact whether he is a tenant or
not. It was held that non-payment of rent negates the
existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant.
In Sh. Tarlok Singh v. Sh. Harnam Singh and another, 1974,
PLJ 396 , it was held that to determine whether a person is
a tenant over the land, the entries in the column of
cultivation and column of rent have to be read together.
It was also held that no presumption of truth is attached
to the Khasra Girdawaries.”
22. This position was reiterated in Mandir Thakurdwara
vs. Raj Kumar, 2020 (1) Him. L.R. 547 , wherein it was held : -
“17. In question No.2, both parties have cited a number of
judgments in support of their contentions. Before
adverting to the facts, the law cited by learned counsel
may be considered. Learned counsel for the appellant
relies upon the decision of the Lahore High Court in
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

15
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
Girdhari Ram and others vs. Qasim and others, AIR 1936
Lahore 461 , holding: -
“... I am aware of the fact that it is the practice of
revenue authorities in this province to record a
person who is in possession of land without any
ostensible title thereto, in the column of cultivator
describing him as a tenant-at-will, and that
sometimes a remark is added mentioning the
grounds on which the person in possession claims
to be in possession. No presumption of tenancy
necessarily arises in such cases, but in the present
case, there is something more than that.” (p.462)
18. In Relhu Ram vs. Than Singh and others, 1966 (LXVIII)
P.L.R.866, again the Court holds: -
“5. Mr Nehra then sought to contend that the
defendants had established on the present record
that they were the tenants of the land in dispute.
Again, on this matter, there is a concurrent
decision on a question of fact by the courts below,
which is binding on me in the second appeal.
Moreover, there is no evidence that any rent was
being paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. As a
matter of fact, the entry is that they are paying no
rent because of the assertion of ownership.
Therefore, the documentary evidence clearly
shows that the entry that the tenants are non-
occupancy tenants is clearly erroneous. It is well
known that the revenue authorities, when they find a
person in possession of the land without any right,
normally record him as a tenant irrespective of the
fact whether he is a tenant or not . Non-payment of
rent negatives existence of a relationship of
landlord and tenant. This was so held in Kanwar A.
Ahmed Khan v. The Union of India, (1954)56
P.L.R.468 : -
“The relationship of landlord and tenant
comes into existence as the result of an
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

16
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
agreement, express or implied. It may be
implied from the acts and conduct of the
parties, which indicate that the landlord
intended to divest himself of the possession
of the premises and that the tenant intended
to assume possession thereof. One of the
most important circumstances from which
this inference may be drawn is the payment
of rent, for although rent is not essential, it is
a normal incident of tenancy, and the fact
that a person in possession of the premises
paid rent to the owner thereof indicates to an
extent at least that the relationship of
landlord and tenant exists between the
parties. On the other hand, the fact that no
rent was paid would lead one to a contrary
conclusion and negate the existence of such a
relationship.” (pp.868-869)
19. In Maman Singh vs. The Resident Magistrate, Gohana
and others, 1965(LXVII) P.L.R. 161 , the Court holds: -
“5. ...It is well-settled that in deciding whether a
person is a tenant, we have not to look to the
entries in the column of cultivation in the
jamabandi because that column only gives the
name of the person in occupation, irrespective of
the capacity in which he is occupying the land. On
the contrary, we have to look at the column of rent
because it is the entries in that column which go to
show as to whether the person is occupying the
land as a tenant, and if so, on how much rent, or
whether he is occupying the land in any other
capacity. See Ghulam Murtaza v.Nagina, A.I.R. 1930
Lah 991, Puran v.Kure, 57 P.L.R.,57 and Sher
v.Phuman Ram, 1942 P.L.R. 497 .....” (p.163)
20. To similar effect is the judgment of the Punjab High
Court in Shri Tarlok Singh vs.Shri Harnam Singh and
Another, 1974 P.L.J. 396 , holding that the non-payment of
rent negatives the existence of the relationship of
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

17
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
landlord and tenant, the entries in cultivation column
and the rent column are to be read together in order to
ascertain the rights of the parties, entries in Khasra
Girdawari do not attach presumption of truth and in case
of any conflict in the entries in the copies of Khasra
Girdawari with the copies of Jamabandi, the Patwari has
to be examined for explaining the discrepancy. Similar is
the decision in Ajmer Singh and Another vs. Surjit Singh
and others, 1992 PLJ 311 , holding that a person reflected in
cultivating possession of the suit land in the revenue
record without mentioning any rent being paid does not
establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. In fact,
the Court held: -
“7. ... Non-payment of rent negatives the existence
of a relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus, the
case set up by the first appellate Court that the
defendants were in permissive possession cannot
be sustained either on facts or in law.”
21. The last case relied upon by the appellant is Kanshi
Ram and Others vs. Rawat Singh and Others, 1 972 P.L.J. 580 .
The Court holds: -
“2. ...It was nobody’s case that these vendees were
setting up any adverse possession or hostile title.
The vendees were not claiming any better rights
than those of tenants, and they had actually paid a
substantial amount to the owner in
acknowledgement of his superior title or right of
ownership in the land. The simple fact that the
column of rent does not mention any lagan or rent
would not imply that we can force on these persons
who have been described as muzaras ghair
maurusi, the superior title or the ownership rights
that they had never claimed. The expression
“muzaras ghair maurusi” has to be given its
ordinary meaning unless the entries in the column
of rent were found to be inconsistent with the
meaning to be assigned to the entries in the
column of occupation. All the rulings cited before
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

18
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
me by the counsel for the plaintiff-pre-emptor are
on altogether different facts. In Maman Singh v.
The Resident Magistrate, Gohana and others, 1965
P.L.R. 161, Rulhu Ram v.Than Singh and others, 1966
P.L.R. 866 and Annamalai Goundan v.Venkatasami
Naidu and others, A.I.R. 1959 Madras 354 , the person
who was in possession and who was described as a
tenant-at-will in the column of cultivation was
claiming better rights and could show entries in
the column of rent in support of his plea of
prescriptive title or better rights and could show
entries in the column of rent in support of his plea
of prescriptive title or better rights in the land. The
entries in the column of rent in our case do not
suggest that the person in possession was anything
over and above a tenant-at-will, as described in
the column of cultivation, and the person in
possession does not claim any rights which could
be described as hostile to the true owner. The
words ‘muzaras’ or ‘ghair maurusi’ or ‘tenant-at-
will’ in the column of cultivation have, therefore,
to be given their ordinary meaning, and there is
nothing in the entries in the column of rent to
suggest that this description of the person in
possession was incorrect. In fact, the person in
possession does not claim to have any better rights
than that of a tenant-at-will. The Courts are not
entitled to make out a case for the parties which
had not at all been pleaded by them....”
23. Therefore, in the absence of any entry in the column
of rent regarding the payment of rent, a person cannot claim
himself to be the tenant merely because he has been recorded to
be in possession as Gair Maurusi (non-occupancy). Therefore,
the submission that since the defendant had projected a claim
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

19
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
of tenancy, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be taken
away cannot be accepted, and this substantial question of law is
answered accordingly.
Substantial Question of Law No.2 :
24. Khoob Ram (PW1) stated that Achhru had
bequeathed the land to him (Khoob Ram). Achhru had got the
property from Ghogli. Luharu, Parsu and Ghogli were brothers
and sisters. Luharu got the property from Pandit on a tenancy.
Luharu died 24-25 years ago. Luharu used to cultivate the land.
He is the son of Achhru.
25. The plaintiff projected the claim of the acquisition of
the property as a legal heir of Achhru as well as by way of
inheritance based on a Will. Even if it is accepted that a tenant is
not entitled to execute a Will in favour of another person
regarding the share held by him on tenancy, the claim of the
plaintiff, being the son of Achhru, would still exist. Therefore, it
cannot be said that there was any contradictory claim projected
before the Court and this substantial question of law is
answered accordingly.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

20
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
Judgments cited
26. R. Ravindra Reddy (supra) deals with the question of
limitation, Dharmi (supra) deals with the appointment of a
Local Commissioner and additional evidence, and R. Suseela
Devi (supra) deals with inter-se seniority, which do not arise in
the present case. Shiv Dayal (supra) and Gopal Krishan (supra)
deal with the scope of regular second appeal, which is not
involved in the present case. Varinder Kumar (supra) deals with
the interpretation of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,
which does not arise for determination in the present case. In
Ajay V ij (supra), this Court had held that a person has to plead
and prove the agreement between him and the landlord before
he can claim to be a tenant, which is an undisputed position.
Therefore, the cited judgments do not apply to the present case
Final Order :
27. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Appellate Court requiring an
interference from this Court. Hence, the present appeal fails and
is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS

21
2026:HHC:26635
High Court of H.P.
28. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending
application(s), if any.
29. Records of the learned Courts below be sent down
forthwith.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
th
6 July, 2026
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 15:02:55 :::CIS