JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th October, 1969 passed by the Additional District Judge, Una by which the appeal of the present appellant (plaintiff) was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by sub-Judge, Una on 31st July, 1967 dismissing the -appellants suit was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the land entered in Khata No. 193, khatauni No. 974 and khasra No. 2895 measuring 110 kanals of jamabandi 1961-62 mauza Saloh, Tehsil Una, and that the above land does not vest in the Gram Sabha, Saloh. The plaintiff in para 3 of the plaint has alleged that he is in possession of the disputed land prior to the year 1950 as a co-sharer and has been cultivating the same. It is further alleged that he had been planting trees in this land and taking their usufruct during all this period and on these allegations it was alleged that the suit land, although entered as shamilat deh in the revenue records, does not vest in the Gram Sabha, 3. This suit was contested by the defendant Gram Sabha, Saloh and in the written statement it was alleged that the suit land is Banjar Qadim and that the growth of the trees and grass on the suit land is of a sponta neous nature. It was further alleged that the land is Shamilat Deh and its ownership vests in the panchayat and that the plaintiff has no concern viz. its ownership. It was also alleged that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 1-11-1965 : 1. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. O.P.D. 2. Whether the land in suit does not vest in the defendant. O.P.P. 3. Relief. The parties led evidence and the Sub-Judge, Una vide its judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1967 decided issue No. 1 against the defendant an«f issue No. 2 against the plaintiff and as a result of the same dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant with costs. 5. O.P.P. 3. Relief. The parties led evidence and the Sub-Judge, Una vide its judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1967 decided issue No. 1 against the defendant an«f issue No. 2 against the plaintiff and as a result of the same dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant with costs. 5. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Una but the same was also dismissed on 24th October, 1969 by the Additional District Judge, Una. 6. In this appeal Shri R. K. Punshi, appearing on behalf of the plain tiff-appellant had contended that under the provision of Section 2 (g), proviso clause (viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 the suit land is excluded from the definition of Shamilat Deh and as such the same does not vest with defendant respondent. The learned counsel referred to the oral evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses to substantiate his contention. Miss Shyama Vasudeva appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri L. S. Panta, Deputy Advocate General for H. P. State contended that the suit land is described as Shamilat Deh and the exception (viii) is not attracted in this case and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any rights in the suit land. It was further contended that the evidence on the record does not at all prove that the suit land falls within the exception given in Section 2 (g). 7. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It was further contended that the evidence on the record does not at all prove that the suit land falls within the exception given in Section 2 (g). 7. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Section 2(g)of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 reads as follows :— "(g) Shamilat Deh includes— (1) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh excluding Abadi Deh ; (2) Shamilat Tikkas ; (3) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community of a part thereof or for common purposes of the village ; (4) Lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, play-grounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds within Abadi Deh or Gora Deh ; and (5) Lands in any village described as Banjar Qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records : Provided that Shamilat Deh, at least to the extent of twenty-five per centum of the total area of the village does not exist in the village but does not include land which,— (i) (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis, to a displaced person . (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual land-holders before the 26th January, 1950; (iv) having been acquired before the 26th January 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the Shamilat Deh is also so recorded in the Jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed and is not in excess of the share of the co-sharer in the Shamilat Deh ; (v) is described in the revenue records as Shamilat Taraf, Patti, Panna and Thola and is not used according to the revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village ; (vi) lies outside the Abadi Deh and was being used as Gitwar, Bara, manure pit, or house or for cottage industry immediately before the commencement of this Act ; (vii) is Shamilat Deh of villages included in the fourteen revenue estates called Bhojes of Naraingarh Tehsil of Ambala District ; (viii) Was Shamilat Deh and was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers, not being in excess of their respective shares in such Shamilat Deh on or before the 26th January, 1950 ; or (ix) The plaintiff appellant in this case has produced two witnesses besides giving his own statement as PW-1. The plaintiff in his own statement as PW-1 has stated that he is in possession of the suit land from the times of his ancesters and that there are trees of Kher and Chil in the suit land and that some mango tree have also been planted by him-. It is further stated by the plaintiff that he has been taking the grass and usufruct of the trees. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted the execution of a lease deed Ex. D-L dated 19th October, 19>7 in favour of the defendant panchayat,. with respect to this suit land and he has stated that this was got executed from him by fraud. He has further stated that the land in dispute is Banjar and that he does not know about his share in the Shamilat, PW-2 Vakil Singh, has only stated that plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that he had been seeing plaintiffs possession from the time he attained the age of majority. He has given his age as 60 years. He has given his age as 60 years. He has also stated that there are some trees on this land and grass also grows on the same and that the plaintiff has been utilizing the usufruct of this land. The next witness is Shankar pass, PW-3 and he has also stated the plaintiffs possession on the suit land is for the last about 20 years, i. e. from the year 1947. As against this Shri Kashmir Singh who is Sarpanch of defendant panchayat from the year 1964 has stated that the plaintiff had never remained in possession of the suit land and that the suit land is Banjar in nature and the trees standing on the same are of spontaneous growth. He has also stated that this land has not been surrounded by any hedge. He has also stated that that the plaintiff executed a PATTANAMA Ex D-l in defendants favour on 19-10-57 for this land. The above oral evidence does not at all establish that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land prior to the year 1950. Even the plaintiff has admitted that the land in dispute is Banjar. The documentary evidence consists of Ex. P-l, Jamabandi for the year 1952-53, P-2 Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 and P-3 Girdawari from 16-10-50 to 31st March, 1952. In Ex. P-l the land in dispute is shown as "Shamilat Deh" in posession of plaintiff as a co-sharer. But the nature of the land is "Banjar Quadim Gair Mahfuj" and it is not assessed to any land revenue. In Ex. P-2 Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 the land is shown to be in the ownership of Gram Sabha and the possession is of plaintiff as a co-sharer. The nature of the land is shown as Banjar Quadim and the same is not assessed to any land revenue. In Ex. P-3 khasra girdawri, the whole khasra No. 2895 measuring 347 kanals 9 marlas is shown to be in the ownership of "Shamilat Deh" and in the column of possession as "Makbuja Malkan". The nature of the land is shown as "Banjar Quadim". In this girdawri for the first time the name of the plaintiff appears in kharif 1950 in the possessory column for 110 kanals of land. This document clearly proves that the plaintiffs possession had not been recorded earlier to October, 1950. The nature of the land is shown as "Banjar Quadim". In this girdawri for the first time the name of the plaintiff appears in kharif 1950 in the possessory column for 110 kanals of land. This document clearly proves that the plaintiffs possession had not been recorded earlier to October, 1950. Even after recording the plaintiffs possession the land is still shown to be "Banjar Quadim" and is not shown to be in cultivation. Ex. D-l is the "Pattanama" which has been obtained by the plaintiff from Gram Panchayat Sabha on 19th October, 1957 and by this document the plaintiff himself got the disputed land on lease from 1954 to 1957. The plaintiff in his statement has stated that this "Patta" was got executed under fraud. From the documentary evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that his case falls within the exception (viii) clause (g) of section 2. It is nowhere proved that the disputed land was assessed to land revenue. It is further also not proved that the plaintiff as a co-sharer was in cultivating possession of the suit land prior to 26-1-50. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that his share in the "Shamilat Deh” exceeds the area which is in his possession, i. e., the disputed land. To claim an exemption it was essential for the plaintiff to have pleaded and proved all the above mentioned facts but he has neither pleaded these facts in his plaint in clear words nor has he cared to produce any evidence to claim the relief. The documentary evidence rather shows that the plaintiff was recorded to be in possession for the first time in October, 1950 and even at that time the land was "Banjar" and not cultivated. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has all together failed to prove that the provision of section 4 of the Punjab Act No. 18 of 1961 are not applicable with respect to this land and that his case falls within the exception No. (viii) mentioned above. No other point was urged before me. The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs and the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below dismissing the plaintiffs suit are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.