(A) The Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Evacuee Property – Plea that Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as suit property is Evacuee property – Held: In the present case, no question regarding the suit land being evacuee property or not was raised before the Court. The simple case of the plaintiffs is that evacuee property was sold to Jasjit Singh who sold it to plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and Gyan Chand. Nobody is challenging the sale made in favour of Jasjit Singh by claiming that the suit land was not evacuee property and could not have been sold. Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. (Para 17)
(B) Tenancy Proof of – Revenue entry – Bare entry of tenancy is not sufficient and one has to look at the column of rent to determine the tenancy and its conditions. Learned Courts below had rightly recorded that there was no entry regarding the rent in favour of defendant hence, the revenue entry was insufficient to prove the tenancy. Defendant has not brought any material to justify the change; hence, the entry in favour of defendant is not sufficient to prove the tenancy. (Para 24, 29)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 201 HP
Bachno Devi And Oth Vs. Chandan Verma And Others
RSA No. 11 of 2022-Decided on 25-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-201-HP.pdf
