ORDER P.S.Rana 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur HP in civil appeal No. 49 of 1991 decided on 23.3.2000 titled Sada Nand Vs. Sahamboo Ram and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Deceased Shamboo Ram and others filed suit for declaration that plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 6 are the owners in possession of 3/8th shares and are tenants of 1/8th share over land comprised khata No.1 min khatauni No.5 khasra Nos. 650/15, 652/15, 28, 200, 291, 302 measuring 6 kanals 5 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85 situated in village Tika Khangalta, Tappa Pahlu, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur H.P and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong and unauthorized and are liable to be corrected. In alternative plaintiffs have sought relief that in case co-defendant No.1 dispossessed plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 6 during pendency of the suit then decree for possession of suit land be also passed in favour of plaintiffs and against co-defendant No.1. It is pleaded that plaintiffs and co-defendant No.1 are descendants of Tulsi and Fata and defendants No. 2 to 6 are descendants of Sudama, Dhari, Jaggan and Hamira. It is pleaded that parties are cultivating the suit land as tenants since long. It is pleaded that in the year 1974 plaintiffs became owners of 3/16th shares and continued as tenants over 1/16th share under Smt. Chinti Devi and defendants No 2 to 6 became owners of 6/16th shares and continued as tenants of 2/16th share under Chinti Devi. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 in collusion with revenue officer between 1950-1974 unauthorizedly got himself entered in possession of suit land exclusively in revenue papers. It is pleaded that during consolidation operation in the village plaintiffs and codefendant Nos.2 to 6 came to know about revenue entries recorded in the name of co-defendant No.1. It is pleaded that cause of action arose in the year 1987 when plaintiffs acquired knowledge of wrong entries and when co-defendant No.1 threatened to dispossess plaintiffs and co-defendants No. 2 to 6 from suit land. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. It is pleaded that cause of action arose in the year 1987 when plaintiffs acquired knowledge of wrong entries and when co-defendant No.1 threatened to dispossess plaintiffs and co-defendants No. 2 to 6 from suit land. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and plaintiffs have no locus standi to file present suit. It is pleaded that suit is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit. It is pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand is owner of 3/4th shares and is non-occupancy tenant over remaining 1/4th share. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 is exclusively in possession over suit land. It is pleaded that plaintiffs did not remain in possession over suit land. It is pleaded that mutation No.1387 relating to proprietary right was sanctioned in favour of co-defendant No.1. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have full knowledge about revenue entries. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file present suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. As per pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court on 7.9.1988: 1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land and partly tenant in possession of the same, as alleged? …OPP 2.Whether suit is not maintainable? …OPD-1 3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit? …OPD-1 4. Whether suit is barred by limitation? …OPD-1 5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing suit due to their act and conduct? ..OPD-1. 6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?. ..OPD-1. 7. Relief. 4. Finding of learned trial Court upon issue No.1 is in affirmative and findings of learned trial Court upon issues No. 2 to 6 are in negative. Learned trial Court passed decree for declaration in favour of plaintiffs and against codefendant No.1 to the effect that plaintiffs and co-defendants No. 2 to 6 are owners in possession of 3/8th shares and are tenants of 1/8th share of suit land. Learned trial Court held that entries of revenue record in favour of co-defendant No.1 are wrong. Learned trial Court passed decree for declaration in favour of plaintiffs and against codefendant No.1 to the effect that plaintiffs and co-defendants No. 2 to 6 are owners in possession of 3/8th shares and are tenants of 1/8th share of suit land. Learned trial Court held that entries of revenue record in favour of co-defendant No.1 are wrong. Learned trial Court further held that plaintiffs and co-defendants No. 2 to 6 are in joint possession of suit land. Learned trial Court in alternative dismissed the suit for possession. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand filed appeal before learned District Judge Hamirpur. Learned District Judge Hamirpur decided civil appeal No. 49 of 1991 on 23.3.2000 titled Sada Nand Vs. Shambhoo Ram and others. Learned District Judge Hamirpur modified the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and held that out of total tenancy land inherited from Gokul half portion of suit land would go to plaintiffs and half would go to Sada Nand. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur HP appellant Sada Nand filed present RSA under Section 100 CPC. Shamboo Ram and others also filed cross objections under Order 41 rule 22 read with section 151 CPC against judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur HP. RSA was admitted on 24.11.2000 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether impugned judgment and decree are not in consonance with the provision of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether lower appellate Court gone beyond its jurisdiction to partially accept the appeal while returning findings in favour of the co-defendant No.1/appellant?. Was not suit of the plaintiff respondents liable to be dismissed in its entirety? 2. Whether civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the proceedings made during the consolidation of holdings? Was not the suit of the plaintiff-respondents beyond the competence of the civil court as per the provisions of H.P Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act?. 3. Whether both courts below failed to take into consideration the true import of the definition of the ‘Tenant” as defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act as well as Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?. 7. 3. Whether both courts below failed to take into consideration the true import of the definition of the ‘Tenant” as defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act as well as Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?. 7. At this stage High Court framed additional substantial question of law in present RSA exercising powers vested under Section 100(5) proviso Code of Civil Procedure. After perusal of pleadings of parties carefully and after perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record carefully High Court is satisfied that present case involves additional substantial question of law in order to dispose of RSA properly and effectively and in order to impart substantial justice to parties. 4. Additional substantial question of law framed by High Court. “Whether Smt. Chinti Devi or in alternative if Chinti Devi had died her legal representatives ought to be impleaded as co-defendant in present suit being necessary party order 1 rule 10(2) CPC in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settled all questions involved in suit and to pass effective decree of declaration? 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 9.Findings upon additional substantial question of law No.4 with reasons. 9.1 PW1 Shambhoo Ram son of Tulsi Ram has stated that Kanshi Ram etc. were owner of the suit land. He has stated that half portion of the suit land was cultivated by Salla and half portion of suit land was cultivated by Gokul. He has stated that after the death of Gokul and Salla his legal representatives cultivated the suit land. He has stated that khatauni of suit land is joint. He has stated that suit land is 12 kanals and some marlas. He has stated that parties are in joint possession of suit land. He has stated that in the year 1987 consolidation took place and plaintiffs came to know that entry of the suit land is recorded in the name of co-defendant No.1. He has stated that Fata had died 4-5 years ago. He has stated that suit land is cultivable land. He has stated that there were two owners namely Kanshi Ram and Chinti Devi. He has stated that Kanshi Ram had died. He has stated that he does not know about Chinti Devi. He has stated that Fata had died 4-5 years ago. He has stated that suit land is cultivable land. He has stated that there were two owners namely Kanshi Ram and Chinti Devi. He has stated that Kanshi Ram had died. He has stated that he does not know about Chinti Devi. He has stated that he did not pay any rent during his life time to land owners. He has stated that his father had paid rent to land owners. He has stated that his father had died 12-13 years ago. He has stated that property of his father devolve upon his and his brothers. He has denied suggestion that suit land is in exclusive possession of co-defendant No.1. He has denied suggestion that co-defendant No.1 is the owner of suit land. He has denied suggestion that parties are cultivating land separately. 9.2 PW2 Munshi Ram son of Roop Singh has stated that parties are known to him and he has also seen the suit land. He has stated that tenants were Fata, Tulsi, Gokul and Rula since ancestral time. He has stated that land was cultivated jointly. He has stated that co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand did not cultivate land independently. He has stated that in consolidation proceedings it came to the knowledge that co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand is in excess possession of kanals of land. He has stated that he is also one of the co-owner of the suit land. He has stated that Fata and Tulsi used to reside separately. He has stated that both have died. He has stated that he did not take rent from tenants. He has stated that his ancestral used to take rent from tenants. He has stated that his father had died 30 to 35 years ago. 9.3. PW3 Beli Ram son of Sahano Ram has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that parties are joint tenants over the suit land. He has stated that initially the suit land was in the tenancy of Gokul. He has stated that Sada Nand is the son of Fata. He has stated that he took rent in the year 1970. He has stated that Fata has died. He has denied suggestion that he has inimical relation with codefendant No.1 Sada Nand. 9.4. He has stated that initially the suit land was in the tenancy of Gokul. He has stated that Sada Nand is the son of Fata. He has stated that he took rent in the year 1970. He has stated that Fata has died. He has denied suggestion that he has inimical relation with codefendant No.1 Sada Nand. 9.4. PW4 Jai Ram son of Tulsi co-plaintiff has stated that co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand did not file any correction application relating to suit land. He has stated that Field Kanungo and Tehsildar did not visit suit land. He has stated that initially the suit land was in the name of his father and in the name of father of co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand. He has stated that plaintiffs did not leave joint possession of suit land at any point of time. He has stated that half portion of the suit land is in the possession of plaintiffs and half portion of suit land is in the possession of defendants. He has stated that his father died 15 years ago. He has stated that Fata had died 10 years ago. He has stated that suit land is measuring 12 ½ kanals. He has stated that separate khatauni has been prepared during consolidation proceedings. He has stated that he has filed application before consolidation department for correction of wrong entries in revenue record. He has stated that consolidation department told him to file civil suit. He has denied suggestion that plaintiffs did not remain in possession of the suit land. He has denied suggestion that plaintiffs have no title in the suit property. 9.5 PW5 Dhani Ram son of Sukhdayal has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit land. He has stated that half portion of suit land is in possession of plaintiffs and half portion of suit land is in possession of defendants. He has stated that plaintiffs did not leave the possession of suit land at any point of time. He has stated that area of suit land is 10-12 kanals. He has stated that suit land is comprised of 5 to 6 fields. He has stated that codefendant No.1 Shamboo Ram has kept oxen. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the court in collusion with plaintiffs. 9.6. He has stated that area of suit land is 10-12 kanals. He has stated that suit land is comprised of 5 to 6 fields. He has stated that codefendant No.1 Shamboo Ram has kept oxen. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the court in collusion with plaintiffs. 9.6. DW1 Sada Nand son of Fata Ram co-defendant No.1 has stated that suit land was cultivated by his father. He has stated that his father was tenant of the suit land and thereafter he became owner of suit land. He has stated that his father died in the year 1978. He has stated that after the death of his father he is in cultivating possession of the suit land. He has stated that plaintiffs did not remain in possession of suit land at any point of time. He has denied suggestion that plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land. He has stated that Tulsi did not remain in possession of suit land at any point of time. He has admitted that Tulsi was his uncle. He has denied suggestion that Tulsi had inherited tenancy right from his father Gokal. He has denied suggestion that Gokal was original tenant of suit land. He has denied suggestion that after death of Gokal his son Tulsi and Fata used to cultivate suit land jointly. He has denied suggestion that L.Rs of Tulsi are in settled possession of suit land. 9.7. DW2 Sher Singh son of Roop Singh has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit land. He has stated that Fata had cultivated the suit land. He has stated that after the death of Fata Sada Nand has cultivated the suit land. He has stated that L.R’s of Tulsi did not cultivate the suit land. He has stated that Tulsi and Fata used to reside separately. He has stated that co-defendant No.1 Sada Nand had cultivated suit land. He has stated that Sada Nand has not kept oxen. He has stated that Sada Nand used to cultivate suit land through Longoo Ram with payment of labour charges. He has denied suggestion that Tulsi and Fata during their life time used to cultivate suit land jointly. He has denied suggestion that after death of Tulsi and Fata their L.R’s are jointly cultivating suit land. 9.8. He has stated that Sada Nand used to cultivate suit land through Longoo Ram with payment of labour charges. He has denied suggestion that Tulsi and Fata during their life time used to cultivate suit land jointly. He has denied suggestion that after death of Tulsi and Fata their L.R’s are jointly cultivating suit land. 9.8. DW3 Dila Ram son of Ranoo has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that suit land was cultivated by Fata and after the death of Fata the suit land is cultivated by Sada Nand co-defendant No.1. He has stated that Tulsi did not cultivate the suit land. He has stated that Fata and Tulsi were real brothers and were sons of Gokal. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration that plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 6 are owner in possession of 3/8th shares and are tenant of 1/8th share under Chinti over suit land and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong and unauthorized and Smt. Chinti Devi or in alternative her legal representatives are necessary parties in the present case is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plaintiffs have filed suit relating to suit land comprised in khata No.1 khatauni No.5, khasra Nos. 650/15, 652/15, 28, 200, 291 and 302 kita 6 measuring 12 kanals 9 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. Court has carefully perused entries of jamabandi 1984-85 Ext P5 placed on record. In possession column of suit land Ext P5 placed on record it has been specifically mentioned in revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1984-85 that Sada Nand co-defendant No.1 son of Sh Fata son of Gokul is owner to the extent of 3/4th shares and is tenant under Smt. Chinti to the extent of 1/4th share qua suit land. Court is of the opinion that Smt. Chinti Devi who is the owner of suit land and under whom plaintiffs are seeking tenancy right is necessary party in the present civil suit in order to dispose of civil suit properly and effectively. At the time of institution of suit Chinti is recorded as owner of 1/4th share in suit property as per jamabandi 1984-85 Ext P5 placed on record. Both parties have sought tenancy rights qua share of Chinti in present suit. At the time of institution of suit Chinti is recorded as owner of 1/4th share in suit property as per jamabandi 1984-85 Ext P5 placed on record. Both parties have sought tenancy rights qua share of Chinti in present suit. Tenancy rights are in dispute inter se parties qua 1/4th share of Chinti in suit land. It is held that Chinti ought to have been joined as codefendant in present suit at the time of institution of suit being necessary party. It is held that Chinti is necessary party in present suit in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in present civil suit and to pass effective decree of declaration as sought in relief clause of plaint. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that Chinti is not necessary parties in the present suit is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plaintiffs have sought relief of tenancy right qua 1/4th share of Chinti recorded in record of rights prepared under H.P. Land Revenue Act. Court is of the opinion that name of persons recorded in latest record of rights prepared as per H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 in ownership column or possession column are necessary parties in civil suit of declaration. Entries of possession column of suit land recorded in jamabandi for year 1984-85 relied at the time of institution of suit Ext P5 is quoted: “Sada Nand son of Fata son of Gokal owner of 3/4th shares and non-occupancy tenant under Smt. Chinti qua 1/4th share. In the present case plaintiffs have claimed tenancy right under Chinti Devi. It is well settled law that tenancy is a bilateral agreement between landlord and tenant and same should be proved in civil suit in accordance with law. It is well settled law that jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and jamabandi entries did not create any title. See: AIR 1994 Apex Court 227 DB titled Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and others. Also see SLJ 1994 (1) page 68 Apex Court titled Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh and others. Also see 2015 AIR SCW page 3482 Apex Court titled H.Lakshamaiah Reddy Vs. L.Venkatesh Reddy. It is also well settled law that where tenancy is disputed inter se parties then jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. Rattan Chand and others. Also see SLJ 1994 (1) page 68 Apex Court titled Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh and others. Also see 2015 AIR SCW page 3482 Apex Court titled H.Lakshamaiah Reddy Vs. L.Venkatesh Reddy. It is also well settled law that where tenancy is disputed inter se parties then jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. See AIR 1963 Apex Court 361 titled Raja Durga Singh Vs. Tholu and others. Hence it is held that Smt. Chinti Devi or in the alternative her legal representatives are necessary parties in the present suit in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in present suit and to pass effective decree of declaration. It was held in case reported in AIR 2012 SC 2925 titled Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd and others vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd and others that Court can at any stage of proceedings either on application made by parties or otherwise direct impleadment of any person as party who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of issue involved in the suit. It is further held that a necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by Court. (See AIR 2010 SC 3109 titled Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others. See AIR 2005 SC 2209 titled Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another. See AIR 2004 SC 173 titled Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another. See AIR 2001 SC 2552 titled Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash University and others. See AIR 1999 SC 976 titled Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others. See AIR 1983 SC 124 titled Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and another vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and others. See AIR 1973 SC 569 titled Jayaram Mudaliar vs. Ayyaswami and others. See AIR 1973 SC 2537 titled Rajendar Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others. See AIR 1956 SC 593 titled Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others) 12. Finding upon other substantial questions of law is not given. See AIR 1973 SC 569 titled Jayaram Mudaliar vs. Ayyaswami and others. See AIR 1973 SC 2537 titled Rajendar Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others. See AIR 1956 SC 593 titled Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others) 12. Finding upon other substantial questions of law is not given. Court is of the opinion that if finding is given upon other substantial questions of law framed by High Court of HP then grave miscarriage of justice will be caused to the parties at this stage of the case. Concept of lis pendens as mentioned in section 52 of Transfer of property Act 1882 will apply in present case. 13. In view of above stated facts judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court are set aside and present civil suit is remanded back to learned trial Court having jurisdiction to try civil suit for limited purpose only with direction to implead Smt. Chinti Devi or in the alternative her legal representatives in present suit as co-defendant and thereafter issue notice to Smt. Chinti Devi or her L.R’s in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of present suit afresh expeditiously within three months after receipt of civil suit file. Evidence already recorded will form part and parcel of evidence except legal rights of Chinti or her L.R’s if contested by Chinti or her L.R’s. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 16.10.2015. No order as to costs. File of learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court be transmitted forthwith along with certify copy of limited remand order. Appeal is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.