JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by plaintiff/appellant against judgment, decree dated 27.2.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.102-S/13 of 1999, whereby he reversed the judgment, decree dated 18.8.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.2, Rohru in Civil Suit No.92-1 of 1995. 2. The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to appellant) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was absolute owner of the land comprised in khata khatauni No.34 min/326 min, khasra Nos.869/1, 868, 860/1 hall, sabik number 528/1, measuring 6 bigha 9 biswa, situate in Chak Melthi, Tehsil Rohru, Distt Shimla (hereinafter referred to suit land), since it had been sanctioned as nautor in favour of his father vide order dated 20.4.1970, file No.57/66 of the Revenue Assistant, Mahasu which order in turn has been affirmed by Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu vide appeal No.57/8 of 70-71 dated 28.4.1971. The defendants (hereinafter referred to as respondents) have no right, title and interest to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the suit land, since the nautor granted to the plaintiff/appellant has neither been cancelled nor declared void under the process of law. On these allegations, it has been claimed that the appellant is entitled for grant of patta and mutation in his favour, with further declaration that the proceedings of ejectment initiated by defendant/respondent No.2 along with defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 on dated 8.6.1995 were null and void and not binding upon the appellant. 3. Written statements have been filed jointly by the defendants/respondents No.1 and 3 while separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant/respondent No.2. In the written statement of defendants/respondents No.1 and 3, preliminary objections of cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties and bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC were raised. On merits, it was admitted that the father of the plaintiff was sanctioned nautor land comprised in khasra No.860, 869 and 869/1, measuring 6-19 bigha ( old khasra No. 528/1) on the recommendation of Gram Panchayat, Chak Melthi. 4. It was further averred that the forest department had raised an objection stating that this area contained a number of forest trees and even an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu who dismissed the same. 4. It was further averred that the forest department had raised an objection stating that this area contained a number of forest trees and even an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu who dismissed the same. It was further averred that the plaintiff/appellant was never put in possession as no patta of the land was issued to him. At the time of issuing patta, the father of the plaintiff/appellant had died and this sanction order was to be passed by a competent authority after obtaining clearance from the forest department and the forest department had objected to this sanction and moreover the Deputy Commissioner had not signed the patta. However, it was admitted that the father of the plaintiff/appellant had deposited the nazrana. It was averred that the plaintiff/appellant had also encroached upon the Government land comprised in khasra No.48/1, measuring 0-31-01 hectares, situate in Demarcated Protected Forest, Shallan C-10. It was thus, prayed that the plaintiff/appellant was having no right, title and interest over the suit land and therefore, the suit be dismissed. 5. The suit was contested by defendant/respondent No.2 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections of grounds of valuation, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit is being bad for non-compliance of Section 80 CPC were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant had encroached upon khasra No.48/2, measuring 4-3 bighas, which was Demarcated Protected Forest (DPF), as such the plaintiff/appellant had no right to possess the land. It was claimed that the land was owned and possessed by the State of Himachal Pradesh as is evident from the revenue record. 6. It was pleaded that the defendant/respondent No.2 had registered a case vide FIR No. 38/94, under Sections 379/447 of the Indian Penal Code and 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, at police Station, Enforcement South Zone, Shimla on a complaint filed by one Jai Chand for encroachment and illegal possession of Government land. The plaintiff/appellant had also felled 15 trees of deodar and had committed an offence under Section 379 IPC, for which the investigation was under way. It was further pleaded that this defendant/respondent had no knowledge of sanction of nautor patta and therefore, the plaintiff/appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiff/appellant had also felled 15 trees of deodar and had committed an offence under Section 379 IPC, for which the investigation was under way. It was further pleaded that this defendant/respondent had no knowledge of sanction of nautor patta and therefore, the plaintiff/appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. Lastly, it was pleaded that the land had been got demarcated and during investigation it has been found that the plaintiff/appellant had encroached upon the Government land. The defendant No.2, too prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 24.4.1996 had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit land was sanctioned in favour of late Shri Abdullah, predecessor-in-interest? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non serving the notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiff/appellant to be the owner of the suit land and further restrained the defendants/respondents from interfering in any manner over the suit land. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court who vide its judgment, decree dated 27.2.2002 has been pleaded to set aside the judgment, decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court to dislodge the claim of plaintiff on the following counts (i) the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, was not entitled to relief as claimed (ii) suit of plaintiff was time barred and (iii) since there was no patta granted in favour of the plaintiff or his predecessor and he had not even approached the sanctioning authority for this, therefore, he had no enforceable cause of action to file the suit. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this judgment, decree, the plaintiff/appellant has come in appeal before this Court. 9. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this judgment, decree, the plaintiff/appellant has come in appeal before this Court. 9. This Court on 16.7.2002 was pleaded to admit the appeal on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether non issuance of Patta would take away the legal right of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land specially when the plaintiff/appellant has been using the suit land since the year 1970 and has developed the land to great extent? 2. Whether the respondents authorities were not duty bound to issue Patta in favour of the appellant/plaintiff specially when all legal requirements were fulfilled by the appellant/plaintiff? 3. Whether the suit would be time barred specially when State has not take any steps for issuing Patta in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for the last more then 20 years? 10. I have heard Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. Since all the questions are interconnected and interlinked together, the same are being decided collectively. It is clear from the records that the factum of nautor land having been granted to the father of the plaintiff is not disputed. Only the Forest Department challenged the said grant before Deputy Commissioner who vide order dated 28.4.1971 Ex.PW-1/C. affirmed the grant. No further proceedings were initiated by the respondents against sanction of nautor land in favour of the plaintiff and as such attained finality. It is also not disputed that predecessor-in-interest had even deposited the nazrana amounting to L 347.50/- 12. The mere fact that the patta was not issued does not mean that the nautor land was in fact not granted to the predecessor in- interest of the plaintiff/appellant. It was the defendants/respondents who were required to issue patta as predecessor-interest of the plaintiff/appellant had admittedly deposited the nazrana. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that what has been done by the defendants in the instant case by not issuing the patta virtually amounted to setting aside the order of the Revenue Assistant, Mahasu as affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu. The learned trial Court has further rightly observed that the defendants erred on two counts, firstly by not issuing patta despite specific obligation cast upon them under Nautor rules. The learned trial Court has further rightly observed that the defendants erred on two counts, firstly by not issuing patta despite specific obligation cast upon them under Nautor rules. Secondly, by virtually reviewing and setting aside the order of Revenue Assistant and Deputy Commissioner, Mahashu that too without giving any notice of their intention to do so either to the present plaintiff or his father, which was totally impermissible and contrary to law. 13. On the other hand, the learned lower appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiff/appellant has not come to the court with clean hands nor any cause of action in his favour, no allegations of fraud or concealment qua the suit land had been raised by the defendants. The issue of encroachment of illicit felling of trees over some other land not being the subject matter of the present suit would not disentitle the plaintiff for relief in the present suit 14. In fact the learned lower appellate Court has chosen to carve out a new case in favour of the defendants by raising issue of limitation which otherwise did not arise for consideration in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. It is settled law that the plaintiff is required to approach the Court when there is threat to his title and not otherwise. Once the grant of nautor in favour of the father of the plaintiff was admitted then there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have approached the Court till and so long, the defendants did not interfere in his possession but when the defendants resorted to illegal ejectment, the plaintiff had every cause of action to approach the Court. Thus, the findings of the learned lower appellate Court on this count are totally perverse and required to be set aside. 15. The findings of the learned lower appellate Court are further incorrect and erroneous when it goes on to hold that the plaintiff/appellant never approached the sanctioning authority for the grant of Patta after the date of sanction of nautor or after the dismissal of the appeal and therefore, had no cause of action to maintain the suit. The Court has completely in directed itself and ignored the fact that it was defendants themselves who had questioned the grant of nautor in appeal. The Court has completely in directed itself and ignored the fact that it was defendants themselves who had questioned the grant of nautor in appeal. In case there was no land granted by way of nautor to the predecessor of the plaintiff then where was the question of challenging the same in appeal. This in fact was a case of deemed sanction and at best a procedural formality having no effect on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff,. 16. Insofar the next question regarding possession over the suit land is concerned, the plaintiff Shri Talab Deen while appearing as PW-1 had categorically reiterated his entire case as set out in the plaint and this testimony had been duly corroborated by PW-2 Shri Attar Singh and PW-4 Shri Bahadur Singh. On the other hand, the defendants had led no evidence to show that the plaintiff is out of possession. In fact, DW-1 Shri Gian Singh had only deposed regarding the demarcation carried out by Tehsildar on the spot regarding Khasra No.48/1 which admittedly is not the subject matter of the present suit. 17. DW-2 Shri Jai Lal is the main witness to the demarcation conducted qua khasra No.48/1. In fact this witness does not have any knowledge regarding khasra number(s) involved in the present suit. In his cross-examination he stated that nautor file pertaining to Abdullah was sent from his Block to DFO Jubbal where it remained pending for 18-20 years for report. 18. DW-4 Shri Rameshwar Singh, SDM has deposed that on the spot he found the plaintiff to be in illegal possession of Government land in D.P.F. Shallan (which land is again not subject matter of the dispute). This witness in his cross-examination has admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the property land in dispute. 19. DW-5 Shri Durga Singh retired B.O. has deposed about the demarcation conducted in his presence on the spot but in his cross-examination he admitted that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff. DW-6 Shri Rajay Singh, Patwari deposed that the suit land was allotted as nautor in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and he prepared the tatima Ex.PW-1/F qua khasra No.48/1 (which is not the suit land). He too admitted the possession of the plaintiff. DW-6 Shri Rajay Singh, Patwari deposed that the suit land was allotted as nautor in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and he prepared the tatima Ex.PW-1/F qua khasra No.48/1 (which is not the suit land). He too admitted the possession of the plaintiff. He further admitted that over the suit land there are some fruit bearing trees which have been fenced from all the four sides. 20. DW-7 Ravinder Verma, R.O. Koti in his cross-examination deposed that the suit land was allotted to the father of the plaintiff as nautor. He admitted that all the objections raised by Government were dismissed uptil the Court of financial Commissioner. 21. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, it is absolutely clear that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit land. Once, it is so held then there was no need of plaintiff to have approached the Court until there was a threat to his right, title or interest. 22. The learned lower appellate Court was totally unmindful of the fact that the patta was required to be granted by the defendants themselves and once they had has chosen not to grant the patta, no fault could have been found with the plaintiff. The learned lower appellate Court in fact has given premium to the illegal acts of omission and commissions of the defendants, particularly, with respect to their having not granted 'patta' of the nautor land to the plaintiff despite the appeal preferred against the grant of nautor land having been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu which order had attained finality. 23. In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the non-issuance of the patta could not have any affect on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land. The defendants/respondents who otherwise were bound to issue patta in favour of the plaintiff/appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage to their own wrong, particularly when the appeal preferred against grant of nautor had been dismissed and such dismissal had attained finality. The suit otherwise cannot be held to be time barred as held by the learned lower appellate Court more specifically when this Court has already held that the plaintiff to be in possession over the suit land. 24. The suit otherwise cannot be held to be time barred as held by the learned lower appellate Court more specifically when this Court has already held that the plaintiff to be in possession over the suit land. 24. The aforesaid substantial questions of law are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendants/respondents. 25. In view of my aforesaid findings, the appeal is allowed and the judgment, decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgment, decree passed by learned trial Court are affirmed and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant is decreed with costs through out. Appeal allowed.