Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit stands decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 27.12.2001 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur in Civil Suit No. 62/1 of 1999, titled as Hem Ram vs. Mohinder Singh and others, which stands affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.11.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7-N/13 of 2002, titled as Mohinder Singh and another vs. Hem Raj and others. 2. This is the defendants Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, in terms of judgment and decree referred to hereinabove. The Civil Suit was instituted before the trial Court on 5.10.1999. Appeal before the lower appellate Court was instituted on 30.11.2002 and the instant appeal was admitted on 24.2.2003. 3. Land comprising 8-15 Bighas, situated in Mauza Chewala Bakanag, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. was owned by Smt. Gauri widow of Kirpa Ram and Shri Joginder Singh son of Shri Jagtia in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd, respectively. As per the plaintiff Hem Raj, his father Shri Shankru was the tenant over the said land. The rent was paid as Batai i.e. 1/4th of the produce to the owners. By virtue of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, Tenancy Act), ownership of share of Shri Joginder in the suit land, was vested and conferred upon the tenant i.e. Shri Shankru. Since Smt. Gauri was a widow, by virtue of the provisions of Section 104(8) of the Tenancy Act, share of a widow could not vest with the tenant and as such, Shri Shankru continued to be tenant of Smt. Gauri. Some time in the year 1999, defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Mohinder Singh and Chatter Singh both sons of Shri Joginder Singh on the basis of Will executed by Smt. Gauri got her share mutated in their own name. Aggrieved thereof, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction challenging the entries and also seeking relief of injunction restraining these persons (defendants) from interfering with his possession. 4. Aggrieved thereof, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction challenging the entries and also seeking relief of injunction restraining these persons (defendants) from interfering with his possession. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit, inter alia, denying the tenancy of Shri Shankru and taking a specific plea that one Shri Gaurdia alias Gorkhia was the tenant in the suit land, who relinquished his tenancy way back in the year 1957-58 and thereafter possession of the suit land continued to be with the original owners (Smt. Gauri and Shri Joginder -father of defendants No.1 and 2). Part of the suit land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of the land. The entries of mutation were justified on the ground of alleged Will executed by Smt. Gauri in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is answered in affirmative, whether the revenue entries in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are creating interference in the land in suit, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the land in suit was in the tenancy of Gurdia alias Gorkhia who had relinquished his tenancy in favour of the landlord, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether Gauri Devi had bequeathed her share in the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2, by virtue of registered Will, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether Shamkru was not tenant in the suit land, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the defendants are entitled for the compensation? OPD 10. Relief. 6. Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit in the following effect:- “In view of my aforesaid discussion and findings, suit succeeds. Accordingly the suit is decreed with costs. A decree of declaration is passed that plaintiff and proforma defendants are tenants in the suit land qua the share of Gauri Devi and the land revenue entries showing defendants No.1 & 2 as owner qua the share of Gauri Devi are wrong, illegal null and void and declares as such. Accordingly the suit is decreed with costs. A decree of declaration is passed that plaintiff and proforma defendants are tenants in the suit land qua the share of Gauri Devi and the land revenue entries showing defendants No.1 & 2 as owner qua the share of Gauri Devi are wrong, illegal null and void and declares as such. A further decree of injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 & 2 restraining them from causing any kind of interference in the possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants in the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 25/50 Khasra No. 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27, plot 8, measuring 8-15 Bighas, situated in Mauza Chewala Bakanag, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. or claiming compensation qua the suit land from defendant No.3. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file after needful be consigned to records.” 7. The trial Court disbelieved the oral evidence led by the defendants with regard to execution of the Will. Based on the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, the plea of tenancy of Shri Shankru was upheld. 8. Assailing the judgment dated 27.12.2001, defendants No.1 and 2 filed an appeal, which stands dismissed in terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2002. The lower Appellate Court not only upheld the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court but also conclusively held the suit filed by the plaintiff to be maintainable in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Shri Lajpat Rai (deceased) through his LRs Smt. Maya Devi and others vs. Smt. Taro Devi and others, 1999 (3) Shim.L.C. 269 and other decisions to the similar effect. 9. The instant appeal filed by defendants No.1 and 2 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the absence of proper pleadings and proof, was it within the jurisdiction of the courts below to have declared the plaintiff-respondent to be the tenant over the suit property by misunderstanding the defence taken in the written statement? Are not such findings returned by both the courts below illegal, erroneous and perverse, based on misreading the relevant evidence and misapplication of correct law? 2. Are not such findings returned by both the courts below illegal, erroneous and perverse, based on misreading the relevant evidence and misapplication of correct law? 2. Whether both the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the same was not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? 3. Whether both the Courts below have ignored that the plaintiff-respondent had an efficacious remedy under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for determination of their right which barred the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for determination of the status as well as payment of the amount of compensation? 4. Whether the courts below have overstepped their jurisdiction in returning the findings over the Will executed by Smt. Gauri Devi in favour of the appellants when such question was beyond the scope of the controversy in the suit and was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts in the absence of the natural successor of Smt. Gauri Devi, namely, Shri Joginder Singh? Was not it incumbent for both the Courts below to have discussed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for non-joinder of necessary parties? 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in entirety. In my considered view the appeal only merits dismissal as there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Some of the substantial questions of law already stand settled. 11. The fact that the suit land was owned by Smt. Gauri and Shri Joginder is not in dispute. The fact that share of Shri Joginder, by virtue of Tenancy Act vested with Shri Shankru and entries with regard to the same were duly effected in the revenue record are evidently clear from the Jamabandi (Ext.P-9). Undisputedly these entries were never assailed by Shri Joginder, father of defendants No.1 and 2, who incidentally also appeared as a witness (DW-3) in the trial Court, during his life time. 12. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1) as also examined Shri Hari Dass (PW-2). Plaintiff has conclusively established, by proving documentary evidence i.e. revenue record (jamabandies) Exts. P-1, P-3, P-4, P-5 pertaining to the years 1961-62, 197172, 1966-67 and 1981-82. 12. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1) as also examined Shri Hari Dass (PW-2). Plaintiff has conclusively established, by proving documentary evidence i.e. revenue record (jamabandies) Exts. P-1, P-3, P-4, P-5 pertaining to the years 1961-62, 197172, 1966-67 and 1981-82. These documents evidently and conclusively establish that Shri Shankru was occupying the suit land as a tenant and by virtue of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, share of Shri Joginder vested with Shri Shankru. Significantly, plaintiff has also proved the order of mutation Ext. P-G whereby proprietary rights of Shri Joginder were conferred upon Shri Shankru. At the time of this mutation, presence of Shri Joginder is clearly recorded. This only lends credence to the plaintiff’s version of Shri Shankru being tenant over the suit land. These witnesses have also established that over the suit land plaintiff has set up his house where he is permanently residing since long. The rent was paid in the shape of Batai. 13. On the other hand, testimonies of defendants’ witnesses, namely, Shri Dhani Ram (DW-1), defendant No.2 Shri Chattar Singh (DW-2) and Shri Joginder Singh (DW-3), have been disbelieved by the Courts below. Having gone through the same, I find there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in appreciating the same. However, to prove the earlier tenancy, it is seen that there is a stray entry pertaining to the year 1955-56 to this effect. But then this plea, in the teeth of other contemporaneous and subsequent documentary evidence stands rebutted. Further one witness has himself admitted that subsequently tenancy was created in the name of Shri Shankru. 14. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have chosen not to place on record the Will on the basis of which entry of mutation was effected in their favour. They have also not been able to produce the scribe or the attesting witnesses to establish valid execution and attestation of a Will whereby Smt. Gauri allegedly bequeathed her share in their favour. It is not that the witnesses or the scribe were not available. By virtue of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, proprietary rights of a widow could not have been conferred upon the tenant. It is not that the witnesses or the scribe were not available. By virtue of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, proprietary rights of a widow could not have been conferred upon the tenant. The alleged Will appears to have been set up by the defendants only with the object and purpose of defeating the statutory right of the original tenant and the present plaintiff, who continued to be a tenant after the death of his father. 15. Significantly Smt. Gauri died in the year 1983 and in the jamabandi (Ext.P-6) pertaining to the year 1986-87, in the ownership column, name of defendants is recorded but the possession is still shown to be that of Shri Shankru. 16. Defendants did not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and only when such attempt was made and upon inquiries, the factum of deceit committed by the defendants was discovered that the suit was filed by them on 5.10.1999. 17. The conferment of proprietary rights upon tenant was not an issue. Hence, the lower appellate Court, by taking into account the decision rendered by this Court in Shri Lajpat Rai (supra), held the jurisdiction of the Civil Court not to be barred, more so, for the reason that the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction being in possession of the suit land. 18. In Babu Ram (deceased) through LRs Smt. Sita Devi and others versus Pohlo Ram (deceased) through LRs Smt. Vidya Devi and others, this Court has taken the view that where relationship with respect to tenancy is in dispute, Civil Court would have jurisdiction. 19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar and others vs. Mandir Thor (Math Thor), 2007 (2) Shim.L.C. 422 , has held as under:- “6. The learned Courts below have relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram, 1991 (1) Shim.L.C. 223 , holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. This case was subsequently considered by this Court in Shankar v. Rukmani and others, 2003 (1) Shim. L.C. 300. While disposing of the appeal, this Court has held:- ‘3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the District Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram’s case (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the present case. L.C. 300. While disposing of the appeal, this Court has held:- ‘3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the District Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram’s case (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the present case. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the plaintiff claimed himself to be in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant for the last 20 years, whereas the defendants denied his claim and asserted that they are owners in possession. Therefore, admittedly the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute despite the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff and such kind of disputes are triable by the Civil Court. 10. Coming to the case in hand, it is not averred by the either party that either the proceedings were initiated or the order was passed under Chapter X of the Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the ratio of judgment in Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram’s case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit of the plaintiff.’ 7. Similarly, in Amar Chand v. Thakru Devi (Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1108, this Court following the ratio in Shankar v. Rukmani and others (supra) held: ‘9. The dispute whether a given person is a tenant or not would arise when in the proceedings regarding resumption of land the person cultivating the land claims that he is tenant qua that land and the owner of the land denies that claim. Such a question would be determined by the Land Reforms Officer, appointed for the purpose of Chapter X. A question which arises between two person, each claiming to be tenant in respect of a given extent of land, as in the present case, cannot be said to be a dispute between the owner of the land and the tenant, nor has such a question any relevance to the proceedings required to be conducted under Chapter X of the Act and hence the Land Reforms Officer does not have jurisdiction in respect of such a dispute. To such matters, the provision of Section 112 of the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not attracted.’ 8. To such matters, the provision of Section 112 of the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not attracted.’ 8. I see no reason to differ with the ratio laid down in these judgments. Even otherwise these judgments follow the established precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhulabhai etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78, holding that exclusion of jurisdiction of a Civil Court is not to be inferred readily unless the condition precedent barring such jurisdiction are strictly established.” 20. This Court further in Krishan Chand and others vs. Jeet Ram and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 978, has held: “Question No.5: 9. This question is answered against the appellants. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as pleaded. The decisions in Pritam Singh vs. Krishan Kumar, 1997(1) Sim.L.C. 255, Birbal vs. Udhami 1992(1) Sim.L.C. and Shankar vs. Rukmani, 2003(1) Sim.L.C. 300 are clear and unequivocal that where the proceedings have been conducted without jurisdiction, where the question of tenancy is disputed, independent of the proceedings under the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, there is no finality to the adjudication of the revenue officials and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. In Rukmani’s case supra this Court held:- “After analyzing the judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram’s case (supra), we have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the Act if the dispute pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant arises during the proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights upon the tenant and resumption of land by the land owner and the order in respect thereof has been passed by the authorities under the Act except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. But if the dispute of landlord and tenant arises independent of the proceedings under the Act, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction.” In the present case the very basis and foundation of conferment of proprietary rights has been questioned. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs is one of suppression of facts, exercise of powers by an officer not competent to do so and the very basis of tenancy has been challenged. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs is one of suppression of facts, exercise of powers by an officer not competent to do so and the very basis of tenancy has been challenged. This question is, therefore, answered against the appellants.” 21. Defendants themselves had pleaded and led evidence to establish their right on the basis of the alleged Will executed by Smt. Gauri. Consequently, the Courts below rightly went into and decided the question of title of the defendant on such basis. 22. It is alleged on behalf of the appellants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of title or share of either the plaintiff or the defendants, for the reason the same was to be adjudicated upon under the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as part of the suit land stood acquired by the State. The question of right, entitlement of the amount of compensation was to be adjudicated by the Land Acquisition Collector under the said Act. 23. This plea, in my considered view is misconceived. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with disputes with regard to apportionment of the amount of compensation payable to the persons in the event of dispute having arisen with regard to the same. 24. By virtue of the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court can institute an inquiry with regard to the dispute raised inter se between certain parties. In exercise of the powers under the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the question of adjudication of right and entitlement of the parties which was not subject matter of acquisition, could not have been decided by the Land Acquisition Collector. More so, when before the trial Court this plea was never taken by the parties and neither any issue was got framed nor any evidence oral/documentary or otherwise was led to establish the findings so rendered under the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 25. The decision in Nand Ram vs. Sant Ram, 2011(3)Shim.L.C 240, relied upon by Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, is inapplicable in the facts of the case. 26. Significantly, during the course of hearing Ms. 25. The decision in Nand Ram vs. Sant Ram, 2011(3)Shim.L.C 240, relied upon by Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, is inapplicable in the facts of the case. 26. Significantly, during the course of hearing Ms. Jyotsna Rewaal Dua, learned counsel for the respondents apprised the Court of the order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, whereby the entries showing defendants No.1 and 2 to be the owners stood corrected. The factum of passing of this order was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 27. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed being without any merits. No costs.