The High Court
Case Details
RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-1259-1993 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-03.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 12.12.2025 Pronounced Uploaded on:- 15.12.2025 Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Gajjan Singh (since deceased) through LRs Gajjan Singh (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellant VERSUS Balaki Ram (since and Others since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents No.9 to 12. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the
Facts
learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. Brief Facts 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 enue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was situated in the revenue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was enue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was situated in the rev asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -2- - and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and ing any right, title or interest in the suit property. unlawful manner without having any right, title or interest in the suit property. ing any right, title or interest in the suit property. unlawful manner without hav They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. 3. d the suit by filing a written Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written Upon notice, the defendants conteste Upon notice, the defendants conteste statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last iffs were not entitled to 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaint 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaint any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the assertions contained in allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the assertions contained in allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the the plaint. 4. trial court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the framed the following issues: framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP. for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in posses sion of the suit land? OPP. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? OPP. 3. Relief. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 5. From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their n the date of institution of the suit or immediately possession over the suit land on the date of institution of the suit or immediately n the date of institution of the suit or immediately possession over the suit land o 1 Gamma Ram stepped into the prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW-1 Gamma Ram stepped into the prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 25/30 years, his solitary and highly the disputed land for the last 25/30 year interested s, his solitary and highly-interested TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -3- - testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the resident of the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable resident of the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable village to support their assertion of possession. village to support their assertion of possession. 6. The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied 1) and Khasra upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986–87 (Ex. P-1) and Khasra upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986 upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986 ), did not establish their cultivating Girdawari for 1987–88 and 1988–89 (Ex. P-2), did not establish their cultivating ), did not establish their cultivating Girdawari for 1987 possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon 7.05.1988, when the suit was to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 27.05.1988, when the suit was to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 2 to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 2 filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue authority. 7. 1 and On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW-1 and On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW the last 40 years, and stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for the last 40 years, and stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for 1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for the certified copies of the order (Ex. D-1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for 1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for the certified copies of the order (Ex. D 1987-88 to 1989 2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that 88 to 1989-90 (Ex. D-2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that 2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Patiala regarding regarding in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in appeal, the said entries could not be ignored. appeal, the said entries could not be ignored. 8. ove discussion, the trial court concluded that the In view of the above discussion, the trial court concluded that the ove discussion, the trial court concluded that the In view of the ab plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided against the plaintif Issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly fs, and the suit was decided against the plaintiffs, and the suit was dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -4- - Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an
Legal Reasoning
-standing claim of possession. This Court in the case of Smt. Kesar This Court in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi Vs. Suraj Bhan, RSA-1294-1984, decided on 25.11.1991 Devi Vs. Suraj Bhan, RSA has held that , decided on 25.11.1991 has held that correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been ordered. It is settled proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence is settled proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and litem motam corrections create or extinguish consistent entries, nor can such post-litem motam corrections create or extinguish litem motam corrections create or extinguish consistent entries, nor can such post Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue rights between the parties. Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue rights between the parties. agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual possession based upon evidence on record. possession based upon evidence on record. 19. In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections could not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections 89, particularly made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89, particularly made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987 made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987 when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent s. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the revenue authorities. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the s. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the revenue authoritie defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -8- - lecting their possession throughout. These Jamabandis (Ex. P-1 to P-5) clearly reflecting their possession throughout. These lecting their possession throughout. These Jamabandis (Ex. P documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the lower appellate court. lower appellate court. 20. More importantly, More importantly, More importantly, More importantly, the findings regarding the correctness and the findings regarding the correctness and the findings regarding the correctness and the findings regarding the correctness and e findings of fact based on the genuineness of the earlier entries are pure findings of fact based on the e findings of fact based on the genuineness of the earlier entries are pur appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a appreciate substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, cannot re-appreciate substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, can substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, can evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries serving and not made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self-serving and not made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self worthy of reliance, is fully justified. worthy of reliance, is fully justified. 21. This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate id Jamabandi itself court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990-91. The said Jamabandi itself court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990 court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990 was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and standing entries which consistently therefore could not outweigh the earlier, long-standing entries which consistently standing entries which consistently therefore could not outweigh the earlier, long reasons depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent reasons depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record preceding the dispute. preceding the dispute. Conclusion 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered ed findings which are neither view that the learned lower appellate court has returned findings which are neither view that the learned lower appellate court has return view that the learned lower appellate court has return perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -9- - evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Regular Second Appeal. Regular Second Appeal. 23. Appeal is dismissed, and the Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, and the Accordingly, the present Regular Second Accordingly, the present Regular Second judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are upheld. 24.
Arguments
eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. 10. that the plaintiffs/appellants had The Lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs/appellants had The Lower Appellate Court observed The Lower Appellate Court observed successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20– successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20 successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20 –25 years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years 1972–73, 1977– –78 and 1981–82 as well as Khasra Girdawaris f or the year 1991– 82 as well as Khasra Girdawaris for the year 1991 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming rting possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry supporting possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry suppo possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry suppo standing claim. such a long-standing claim. 11. The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987– The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the 88 and 1988–89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the hen the entire pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly when the entire pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly w pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly w earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been es could made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entries could made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entri made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entri standing entries showing the plaintiffs’ possession. not displace long-standing entries showing the plaintiffs’ possession. not displace long 12. The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 g of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in years prior to the filing of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in g of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in years prior to the filin a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -5- - isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to ngthened the case of the plaintiffs/appellants. Jamabandi entries further strengthened the case of the plaintiffs/appellants. Jamabandi entries further stre 13. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court unction, restraining the dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent inj dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent inj defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land. plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by 05.1993, the present Regular Second the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993, the present Regular Second 05.1993, the present Regular Second the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05. Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 15. for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned Learned counsel judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the suit upon a correct appreciation of the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the suit upon a correct appreciation of the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any substantive basis. substantive basis. 16. It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing een corrected by the competent possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had been corrected by the competent possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had b possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had b revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the ly found the appellant appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorically found the appellant appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorical appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorical to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted Girdawari entries, therefore, carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted Girdawari entries TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -6- - nd had tried to take that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and had tried to take that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land a that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land a undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the latest discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates 91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and Jamabandi for the year 1990–91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and 91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and Jamabandi for the year 1990 ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged possession. ions of learned counsel for the respondent Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent ions of learned counsel for the respondent 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, It was contended that reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. It was contended that reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra more than 20–25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction of Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued standing the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long-standing the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long that the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in efendant shortly before the filing of the suit. favour of the defendant shortly before the filing of the suit. efendant shortly before the filing of the suit. f This Court Findings of This Court 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having not find any carefully examined the record of the courts below, this Court does not find any carefully examined the record of the courts below, carefully examined the record of the courts below, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 1993 (O&M) -7- - reasoned judgment and decree passed by the ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the reasoned judgment and decree passed by the ground to interfere with the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the e appellant, made during the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of the appellant, made during the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of th correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of th pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the plaintiffs’ long-
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 December 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document