(A) H.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1971 – Section 57 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Barred – Plea that the land was partitioned by the Consolidation Authorities and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear and entertain the dispute arising out of the consolidation is barred under Section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act. – Plea accepted – Held: The very premise of the learned Courts below that revenue entries were incorrect and Consolidation Authorities had proceeded on the basis of incorrect revenue entries conferring the jurisdiction on the Civil Court is incorrect and both the learned Courts below erred in returning the holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to question the orders passed by the authorities exercising the powers under H.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. (Para 15, 23)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Additional issue – Non framing of – Issue for Rejection of the Plaint – Held: Once the learned Trial Court had held that it had the jurisdiction, it had rejected the plea of the defendants that the plaint was liable to be rejected because the jurisdiction was barred. Thus, a finding was recorded by the learned Trial Court that it had the jurisdiction meaning thereby the plaint was not liable to be rejected. No prejudice was caused to the defendants as the issues related to the jurisdiction and rejection of the plaint were virtually the same issues and there was no failure of justice. (Para 24)
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Civil Procedure – Necessary Party – Plea that courts below have fallen in error of law and jurisdictions in not dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents when State of Himachal Pradesh being a necessary party was not joined in suit – Held: The plaintiffs claimed that they had surrendered the land. This order was reviewed. The Consolidation Authorities had wrongly partitioned the land. Their claim was duly supported by the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. They did not claim any relief against the State of H.P. They were aggrieved by the fact that the land was wrongly partitioned during the consolidation operation. It was not necessary to join the State of H.P. to adjudicate such a claim. Hence, the suit is not bad for nonjoinder of State of H.P. and this substantial question of law is answered in negative. (Para 25)
(D) Specific findings – Specific findings about the actual physical possession over the Suit land – Plea of not recording any specific findings about the actual physical possession over the suit land – Plea rejected – Held: Trial Court held that in para 10 the plaintiffs were admittedly in possession of the suit land and they were declared exclusive owners in possession of the suit land. This finding was upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that no specific findings were recorded regarding the possession of the plaintiff (Para 13, 26)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 234 HP
Gurdev Singh & Others Vs. Narinder Singh & Others
RSA No. 363 of 2005-Decided on 5-10-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-234-HP.pdf
