JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—This is defendants appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it stood prior to the amendment of the Act in 1976, against the judgment and decree passed on November 14, 1979, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on September 13, 1979 by Senior Sub-Judge, Una, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent. 2. The controversy between the parties is with respect to the ownership and possession of 1 kanal 15 marlas of land being kila Nos. 26 and 27 of rectangle No 1 as entered at Khewat No. 266, Khatauni No. 615 of Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 situate in village Kaloh in Tehsil Amb, District Una. 3. Plaintiff Rattan Singh filed a suit for grant of decree for declaration to the effect that he alongwith others is the owner and in possession of the suit property. The defendants who had no interest in the property, had started interference with his ownership and cultivation on the basis of wrong entries got incorporated by them in the revenue records in connivance with the revenue staff since Kharif 1975 and since then had started interference with his possession A decree for prohibitory injunction was claimed against defendants as a consequential relief. In the alternative a decree for possession of the suit land was claimed, in case the plaintiff was held to have been dispossessed by the defendants The defendants contested the suit and stated that they were in possession of the property for the last mere than forty years and that they have their only residential houses and cow-shed thereon. According to them they were paying tax to the Panchayat in respect of these residential houses. The defendants in the written statement alleged that the property was Abadi, but taking undue advantage of the wrong entries, the plaintiff, who was only one out of 17/18 co-owners, had mala fide intent to harass and blackmail them. Challenge was also made by them to the maintainability of the suit. The replication contained nothing but bare denial of the assertions made in the written statement, without specifically denying the fact that the defendants had their residential houses over the suit land for the last more than forty years or that the nature of the land was Abadi. 4. Challenge was also made by them to the maintainability of the suit. The replication contained nothing but bare denial of the assertions made in the written statement, without specifically denying the fact that the defendants had their residential houses over the suit land for the last more than forty years or that the nature of the land was Abadi. 4. The trial Court found the defendants to be in possession of the property and also found that they had their residential houses built upon the same but concluded that the nature of the possession was that of a trespasser and accordingly granted a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff The lower appellate court, though permitted additional evidence to be taken on record, concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the defendants and that is how they have come in second appeal before this Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Both the courts below have found the defendants to be in possession and their residential houses built upon the land in dispute, There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the defendants on the face of the findings recorded by the courts below that the houses had been constructed by their ancestors and on an area of 5 marlas house of appellant Sham Lai and on the remaining area house of appellant Haria are standing and they had been paying the Chulha tax to the panchayat concerned. Even the witnesses produced by the plaintiff admitted the existence of the houses but the version of the plaintiff that it is only one cattle-shed which is existing on the spot cannot be accepted, especially when the residential house of the plaintiff is located at a considerable distance and no cattle belonging to the plaintiff are being kept in any part of the construction standing upon the land in dispute. 6. It is in the evidence of the defendants as well as in their pleadings that they had been coming in occupation of the houses in their own right considering themselves to be the owners. 6. It is in the evidence of the defendants as well as in their pleadings that they had been coming in occupation of the houses in their own right considering themselves to be the owners. It was during the cross-examination of defendant Sham Lai, who appeared as DW-3, that the plaintiff suggested that, in fact, the land in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff and other co-owners during the consolidation of holding proceedings. In view of this, it is to be seen as to whether the courts below were right in granting decree for possession in favour of plaintiff on the basis of title. 7. The lower appellate court had permitted the defendants to lead additional evidence. Document Ex. DX, certified copy of the judgment dated 6-10-1947 in CA. No. 471 of 1947, decided by Senior Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur, with enhanced appellate powers, was permitted to be placed on record. The dispute was amongst the predecessors of defendants and other co-tenants with them about certain land situate within the same revenue estate. Khasra No 3079 was also one of the parcels of land in dispute which was ultimately found to be belonging to the predecessor of defendants. Ex. D-2 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1971-72, pointing out that Kila Nos. 26 and 27, out of rectangle 1 were previously comprised of various parcels of land including land comprised in Khasra No 3079 and Ex. D-3, which is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1961-62, shows that it was in occupation of the defendants. This copy of jamabandi is prior to the consolidation of holding operation. As the courts below have found the defendants to be in occupation of the property with the residential houses standing thereupon and the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the same alongwith other co-owners and had prayed for a decree for declaration of his title alongwith decree for injunction and in the alternative for possession, it was necessary for him to have proved his title over the suit property, especially, when he had laid a claim to the property which had fallen to his share and the share of his other co-owners during the consolidation of holding proceedings. In view of the contents of documents Ex. DX and entries in document Ex. In view of the contents of documents Ex. DX and entries in document Ex. D-3, it will have to be presumed that defendants were in occupation of the property prior to consolidation and have continued to remain in occupation of the same till date. 8. Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (Act No 20 of 1971) makes a provision entitling a person to whom new holdings have been allotted to enter into possession of such holding and section 35 thereof provides that when in pursuance of section 32 a person has entered into possession of the plots allotted to him, his rights, title and interest in the original holding shall stand extinguished and he shall have the same rights, title and interest in the new holding, In other words, rights, title and interest of a tenure-holder in the earlier holding extinguishes simultaneously on entering into possession of the new holding wherein such rights, title and interest are acquired. In the absence of entering into possession of the new holding, there is no vesting of title. Possession is necessary for the title in the land to vest in the allottee. In the instant case, when it was found that defendants were in occupation of the holding prior to consolidation and plaintiff had not shown that he alongwith other co-sharers entered upon the new holding, there would be no vestment of title. This Court in Roda and another v. Bir Singh etc 9 ILR 1976 HP !97, while considering the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act No. 50 of 1948), which were similar to the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, held as under :— "…..It is plain that the extinction of the rights of a tenure-holder in the original plots must be simultaneous with the acquisition of rights in the new holdings. The law does not contemplate a hiatus between the extinction of rights in the original holdings and the acquisition of rights in the new holdings, nor does it contemplate that a tenure-holder will enter into the enjoyment of his right, title and interest in the new holdings and also continue to enjoy his original holdings. The law does not contemplate a hiatus between the extinction of rights in the original holdings and the acquisition of rights in the new holdings, nor does it contemplate that a tenure-holder will enter into the enjoyment of his right, title and interest in the new holdings and also continue to enjoy his original holdings. The only reasonable way to look at it is that a tenure-holder loses his right, title and interest in the original holdings and at the same time acquires ight title and interest in the new holdings having regard to the scheme set out in the Himachal Pradesh Act a tenure holder acquires right, title and interest in the new holdings only upon his entering into possession of the plots allotted to him……." 9. On the basis of material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence, in my view the plaintiff-respondent has failed to establish that possession was ever delivered to him and his other co-sharers of the suit land during the consolidation of holding proceedings and thus it cannot be held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property entitling to claim possession thereof from the defendants-appellants. 10. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.