Harjit Ram and Others Harjit Ram and Others v. Balkar Singh and and Another
Case Details
RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: Reserved on:-04.09.2025 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 Date of Decision : Harjit Ram and Others Harjit Ram and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Balkar Singh and and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the the the the
Legal Reasoning
appellants/plaintiffs Harjit Ram and others, sons of Billu Ram, against the appellants/plaintiffs Harjit Ram and others, sons of Billu Ram, against the appellants/plaintiffs Harjit Ram and others, sons of Billu Ram, against the appellants/plaintiffs Harjit Ram and others, sons of Billu Ram, against the respondents/defendants Balkar Singh and Majhel respondents/defendants Balkar Singh and Singh, challenging the judgment Majhel Singh, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2000 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby and decree dated 22.04.2000 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby and decree dated 22.04.2000 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby and decree dated 22.04.2000 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 passed by the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 passed by the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 passed by the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. the learned trial Brief Facts 2. facts of the case are that the plaintiff Billu Ram filed a suit The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Billu Ram filed a suit facts of the case are that the plaintiff Billu Ram filed a suit The brief for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering forcibly in his peaceful possession as tenant over the land measuring 38 kanals 17 forcibly in his peaceful possession as tenant over the land measuring 38 kanals 17 forcibly in his peaceful possession as tenant over the land measuring 38 kanals 17 forcibly in his peaceful possession as tenant over the land measuring 38 kanals 17 dnote of the plaint and as per Jamabandi for the year marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint and as per Jamabandi for the year dnote of the plaint and as per Jamabandi for the year marlas, as detailed in the hea 85, except in due course of law. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been a 1984–85, except in due course of law. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been a 85, except in due course of law. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been a 85, except in due course of law. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -2- - tenant on the suit land prior to the year 1965 under the landowners, namely, Shanti tenant on the suit land prior to the year 1965 under the landowners, namely, Shanti tenant on the suit land prior to the year 1965 under the landowners, namely, Shanti tenant on the suit land prior to the year 1965 under the landowners, namely, Shanti Devi, Savitri Devi, Parsanni Devi, Parkash Watti Devi, Savitri Devi, Parsanni Devi, and Swaraj Devi, daughters of Watti and Swaraj Devi, daughters of Lahori Mal. The said landowners had once attempted to dispossess him, due to Lahori Mal. The said landowners had once attempted to dispossess him, due to Lahori Mal. The said landowners had once attempted to dispossess him, due to Lahori Mal. The said landowners had once attempted to dispossess him, due to which he had filed a suit that was decreed ex parte in his favour. The grievance which he had filed a suit that was decreed ex parte in his favour. The grievance which he had filed a suit that was decreed ex parte in his favour. The grievance which he had filed a suit that was decreed ex parte in his favour. The grievance aiming to have purchased the raised in the present suit was that the defendants, claiming to have purchased the raised in the present suit was that the defendants, cl raised in the present suit was that the defendants, cl suit land from the said landowners, had started threatening him with forcible suit land from the said landowners, had started threatening him with forcible suit land from the said landowners, had started threatening him with forcible suit land from the said landowners, had started threatening him with forcible dispossession. The plaintiff asserted that even if the defendants had purchased the dispossession. The plaintiff asserted that even if the defendants had purchased the dispossession. The plaintiff asserted that even if the defendants had purchased the dispossession. The plaintiff asserted that even if the defendants had purchased the h law. He property, they had no right to eject him except in accordance with law. He property, they had no right to eject him except in accordance wit property, they had no right to eject him except in accordance wit maintained that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and legal possession of the maintained that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and legal possession of the maintained that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and legal possession of the maintained that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and legal possession of the suit land as tenant since 1965, regularly paying his share of produce, and suit land as tenant since 1965, regularly paying his share of produce, and suit land as tenant since 1965, regularly paying his share of produce, and suit land as tenant since 1965, regularly paying his share of produce, and accordingly prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. accordingly prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. accordingly prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. 3. suit by filing their written statement. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. suit by filing their written statement. The defendants contested the They raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff was not in possession of the They raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff was not in possession of the They raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff was not in possession of the They raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and that they had been in settled possession since 1987. It was further suit land and that they had been in settled possession since 1987. It was further suit land and that they had been in settled possession since 1987. It was further suit land and that they had been in settled possession since 1987. It was further pleaded that they had been paying Chakota since pleaded that they had been paying 90 and since1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the rate of Chakota was raised from the year 1990 the rate of Chakota was raised from the year 91 and that the plaintiff had 1990–91 and that the plaintiff had executed a chakotanama in their favour for the years 1989 executed a chakota 91, also in their favour for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91, also t the plaintiff receipts for tubewell water charges. On merits, they alleged that the plaintiff receipts for tubewell water charges. On merits, they alleged tha issued receipts for tubewell water charges. On merits, they alleged tha had remained in possession only up to Rabi 1987, and thereafter inducted the had remained in possession only up to Rabi 1987, and thereafter inducted the had remained in possession only up to Rabi 1987, and thereafter inducted the had remained in possession only up to Rabi 1987, and thereafter inducted the defendants on payment of chakota. They also pleaded that they had purchased a defendants on payment of chakota. They also pleaded that they had purchased a defendants on payment of chakota. They also pleaded that they had purchased a defendants on payment of chakota. They also pleaded that they had purchased a portion of the suit land by two registered sale deeds, but their possession was not portion of the suit land by two registered sale deeds, but their possession was not portion of the suit land by two registered sale deeds, but their possession was not portion of the suit land by two registered sale deeds, but their possession was not claimed on the basis of ownership, rather, they were in possession as lessees. It aimed on the basis of ownership, rather, they were in possession as lessees. It rather, they were in possession as lessees. It was contended that since they were already in possession, there was no question of was contended that since they were already in possession, there was no question of was contended that since they were already in possession, there was no question of was contended that since they were already in possession, there was no question of any threat of forcible dispossession, and that the plaintiff had filed the suit merely any threat of forcible dispossession, and that the plaintiff had filed the suit merely any threat of forcible dispossession, and that the plaintiff had filed the suit merely any threat of forcible dispossession, and that the plaintiff had filed the suit merely oid eviction on the ground of subletting. to avoid eviction on the ground of subletting. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -3- - 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations of the Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations of the defendants, while reiterating his own stand. defendants, while reiterating his own stand. 5. ourt framed the On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the On the pleadings of the parties, the On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues: following issues: the land in dispute as a (1) whether the plaintiff is in possession over the land in dispute as a (1) whether the plaintiff is in possession over (1) whether the plaintiff is in possession over tenant? OPP tenant? OPP (2) relief. (2) relief. 6. Both sides led evidence. Both sides led evidence. Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 7. ourt, after considering the record, observed that The learned trial Court, after considering the record, observed that ourt, after considering the record, observed that The possession had been framed and it appeared from the though an issue regarding possession had been framed and it appeared from the possession had been framed and it appeared from the though an issue regarding pleadings that possession was claimed by the defendants, yet the plaintiff had pleadings that possession was claimed by the defendants, yet the plaintiff had pleadings that possession was claimed by the defendants, yet the plaintiff had pleadings that possession was claimed by the defendants, yet the plaintiff had asserted that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, whereas asserted that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, whereas asserted that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, whereas the defendants relied on a patanama dated 10.06.19 defendants relied on a pat 89 to support their possession. The anama dated 10.06.1989 to support their possession. The ourt held that the execution of the patanama remained doubtful. With respect to Court held that the execution of the patanama remained doubtful. With respect to ourt held that the execution of the patanama remained doubtful. With respect to ourt held that the execution of the patanama remained doubtful. With respect to the correction of Khasra Girdawari, the court noticed that the order of the Naib the correction of Khasra Girdawari, the court noticed that the order of the Naib the correction of Khasra Girdawari, the court noticed that the order of the Naib the correction of Khasra Girdawari, the court noticed that the order of the Naib ready been instituted Tehsildar dated 04.05.1990 was passed when the suit had already been instituted Tehsildar dated 04.05.1990 was passed when the suit had al Tehsildar dated 04.05.1990 was passed when the suit had al on 03.05.1990, which showed that the defendants had attempted to change the on 03.05.1990, which showed that the defendants had attempted to change the on 03.05.1990, which showed that the defendants had attempted to change the on 03.05.1990, which showed that the defendants had attempted to change the entries during the pendency of the suit. From the pleadings and conduct of the entries during the pendency of the suit. From the pleadings and conduct of the entries during the pendency of the suit. From the pleadings and conduct of the entries during the pendency of the suit. From the pleadings and conduct of the ging defendants, who even claimed ignorance of the plaintiff’s capacity despite alleging defendants, who even claimed ignorance of the plaintiff’s capacity despite alle defendants, who even claimed ignorance of the plaintiff’s capacity despite alle subletting, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had been a tenant over the subletting, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had been a tenant over the subletting, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had been a tenant over the subletting, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had been a tenant over the land and had been in possession on the date of filing of the suit. It further held that land and had been in possession on the date of filing of the suit. It further held that land and had been in possession on the date of filing of the suit. It further held that land and had been in possession on the date of filing of the suit. It further held that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, and relying on the principle he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, and relying on the princip he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, and relying on the princip he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, and relying on the princip that the court could mould the relief to meet the ends of justice, it decreed the suit, that the court could mould the relief to meet the ends of justice, it decreed the suit, that the court could mould the relief to meet the ends of justice, it decreed the suit, that the court could mould the relief to meet the ends of justice, it decreed the suit, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -4- - directing restoration of possession to the plaintiff and restraining the defendants directing restoration of possession to the plaintiff and restraining the defendants directing restoration of possession to the plaintiff and restraining the defendants directing restoration of possession to the plaintiff and restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession. from interfering in his possession. 8. pendency of the suit, Billu It is relevant to mention here that during pendency of the suit, Billu It is relevant to mention here that durin It is relevant to mention here that durin Ram had died and was represented by his legal representatives, namely, his sons Ram had died and was represented by his legal representatives, namely, his sons Ram had died and was represented by his legal representatives, namely, his sons Ram had died and was represented by his legal representatives, namely, his sons Harjit Ram, Mas st Ram, Kishan and Mohinder Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. ourt, the Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the defendants preferred an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court defendants preferred an appeal. The allowed the learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the suit being one for permanent injunction, the only question appeal, holding that the suit being one for permanent injunction, the only question appeal, holding that the suit being one for permanent injunction, the only question appeal, holding that the suit being one for permanent injunction, the only question was whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of institution of the suit. It was whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of institution of the suit. was whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of institution of the suit. was whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of institution of the suit. found that proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated in found that proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated in found that proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated in found that proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated in March 1990, much prior to the filing of the suit, and on spot inspection it was March 1990, much prior to the filing of the suit, and on spot inspection it was March 1990, much prior to the filing of the suit, and on spot inspection it was March 1990, much prior to the filing of the suit, and on spot inspection it was found that the possession was that of the defendants. The correction was made on found that the possession was that of the defendants. The correction was made on found that the possession was that of the defendants. The correction was made on found that the possession was that of the defendants. The correction was made on ourt held that it a day after institution of the suit, but the Appellate Court held that it a day after institution of the suit, but the 04.05.1990, a day after institution of the suit, but the was merely a consequential step following spot inspection and enquiry already was merely a consequential step following spot inspection and enquiry already was merely a consequential step following spot inspection and enquiry already was merely a consequential step following spot inspection and enquiry already made earlier. It also noticed that the plaintiff did not participate in the said made earlier. It also noticed that the plaintiff did not participate in the said made earlier. It also noticed that the plaintiff did not participate in the said made earlier. It also noticed that the plaintiff did not participate in the said ice. It was observed that the plaintiff had not produced any proceedings despite notice. It was observed that the plaintiff had not produced any ice. It was observed that the plaintiff had not produced any proceedings despite not independent witness from the village to support his possession after 1987, whereas independent witness from the village to support his possession after 1987, whereas independent witness from the village to support his possession after 1987, whereas independent witness from the village to support his possession after 1987, whereas Khasra Girdawari entries supported the documentary evidence patanama and Khasra Girdawari entries supported the Khasra Girdawari entries supported the documentary evidence ourt held that the plaintiff had failed possession of the defendants. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed ourt held that the plaintiff had failed possession of the defendants. The to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and further that if he had to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and further that if he had to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and further that if he had to prove his possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and further that if he had been dispossessed during pendency, he ought to have taken recourse to contempt been dispossessed during pendency, he ought to have taken recourse to contempt been dispossessed during pendency, he ought to have taken recourse to contempt been dispossessed during pendency, he ought to have taken recourse to contempt refore, reversed the judgment of the trial proceedings, but he did not do so. It, therefore, reversed the judgment of the trial refore, reversed the judgment of the trial proceedings, but he did not do so. It, the court and dismissed the suit. court and dismissed the suit. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -5- - 10. Feeling aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed Feeling aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed Feeling aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed Feeling aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/legal representatives of plaintiff Billu Ram. Notice of the RSA by the appellants/legal representatives of plaintiff Billu Ram. Notice of the RSA by the appellants/legal representatives of plaintiff Billu Ram. Notice of the RSA by the appellants/legal representatives of plaintiff Billu Ram. Notice of the RSA , who have appeared and contested the same. was given to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the same. was given to the respondents /LRs of Plaintiff Submission on behalf of the appellants/LRs of Plaintiff Submission on behalf of the appellants 11.
Legal Reasoning
learned Lower Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Lower Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Appellate Court erred in relying upon the pat Appellate Court anama, which is inadmissible in erred in relying upon the patanama, which is inadmissible in evidence having been executed on plain paper. It was submitted that it stood evidence having been executed on plain paper. It was submitted that it stood evidence having been executed on plain paper. It was submitted that it stood evidence having been executed on plain paper. It was submitted that it stood proved on record that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant on payment of batai and proved on record that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant on payment of batai and proved on record that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant on payment of batai and proved on record that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant on payment of batai and was no evidence his only source of livelihood was agricultural income, and there was no evidence his only source of livelihood was agricultural income, and there his only source of livelihood was agricultural income, and there that he or his sons had surrendered possession in 1987. It was urged that mere that he or his sons had surrendered possession in 1987. It was urged that mere that he or his sons had surrendered possession in 1987. It was urged that mere that he or his sons had surrendered possession in 1987. It was urged that mere during the correction of entries in the Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants during the correction of entries in the Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants correction of entries in the Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants pendency of the suit would not change the legal status of the plaintiff as pendency of the suit tenant, and would not change the legal status of the plaintiff as tenant, and he could not be dispossessed on the basis of wrong entries made by revenue he could not be dispossessed on the basis of wrong entries made by revenue he could not be dispossessed on the basis of wrong entries made by revenue he could not be dispossessed on the basis of wrong entries made by revenue officials. The judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court officials. The judgment of the was thus assailed as learned Lower Appellate Court was thus assailed as illegal and unsustainable. illegal and unsustainable. Submission on behalf of the respondents/defendants Submission on behalf of the respondents/defendants Submission on behalf of the respondents/defendants 12. the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in On a suit for permanent injunction, the question of possession alone is material. It was a suit for permanent injunction, the question of possession alone is material. It was a suit for permanent injunction, the question of possession alone is material. It was a suit for permanent injunction, the question of possession alone is material. It was . He contended that the plaintiff himself admitted that he had been dispossessed. He contended that the plaintiff himself admitted that he had been dispossessed contended that the plaintiff himself admitted that he had been dispossessed the defendants had been in possession since 1987 on the further submitted that the defendants had been in possession since 1987 on the the defendants had been in possession since 1987 on the further submitted basis of chakota as well as pattanama executed in 1989. The proceedings for basis of chakota as well as pattanama executed in 1989. The proceedings for basis of chakota as well as pattanama executed in 1989. The proceedings for basis of chakota as well as pattanama executed in 1989. The proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated prior to the filing of the suit and correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated prior to the filing of the suit and correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated prior to the filing of the suit and correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiated prior to the filing of the suit and e 03.05.1990, so the correction made on were decided on spot inspection before 03.05.1990, so the correction made on e 03.05.1990, so the correction made on were decided on spot inspection befor 04.05.1990 was only a formality. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not 04.05.1990 was only a formality. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not 04.05.1990 was only a formality. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not 04.05.1990 was only a formality. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -6- - produce any cogent evidence to show his possession on the date of filing of the produce any cogent evidence to show his possession on the date of filing of the produce any cogent evidence to show his possession on the date of filing of the produce any cogent evidence to show his possession on the date of filing of the versed the trial court’s findings. suit, and therefore, the appellate court rightly reversed the trial court’s findings. suit, and therefore, the appellate court rightly re Findings of this Court Findings of this Court 13. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. It is not in dispute that the suit as framed was one carefully examined the record. It is not in dispute that the suit as framed was one carefully examined the record. It is not in dispute that the suit as framed was one carefully examined the record. It is not in dispute that the suit as framed was one the plaintiff was required to establish his for permanent injunction, and, therefore, the plaintiff was required to establish his the plaintiff was required to establish his for permanent injunction, and, therefore, possession over the suit property as on the date of the institution of the suit. possession over the suit property as on the date of the institution of the suit. possession over the suit property as on the date of the institution of the suit. 14. It also stands admitted on record that the plaintiff was in possession of It also stands admitted on record that the plaintiff was in possession of It also stands admitted on record that the plaintiff was in possession of It also stands admitted on record that the plaintiff was in possession of rsy between the parties is with the suit land till the year 1987. The real controversy between the parties is with the suit land till the year 1987. The real controve the suit land till the year 1987. The real controve regard to possession thereafter, as the defendants have consistently pleaded that regard to possession thereafter, as the defendants have consistently pleaded that regard to possession thereafter, as the defendants have consistently pleaded that regard to possession thereafter, as the defendants have consistently pleaded that they came into possession of the suit land as lessee they came into possession of the suit land as lessee on the basis of patanama. 15. l land is The best evidence to determine possession over agricultural land is The best evidence to determine possession over agricultura The best evidence to determine possession over agricultura the revenue record, particularly the entries in the Khasra Girdawari. It is not the revenue record, particularly the entries in the Khasra Girdawari. It is not the revenue record, particularly the entries in the Khasra Girdawari. It is not the revenue record, particularly the entries in the Khasra Girdawari. It is not disputed that prior to the filing of the present suit, the defendants had already disputed that prior to the filing of the present suit, the defendants had already disputed that prior to the filing of the present suit, the defendants had already disputed that prior to the filing of the present suit, the defendants had already moved an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the Khasra moved an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the Khasra moved an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the Khasra moved an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the Khasra dawari entries. Spot inspection was carried out by the revenue officials before Girdawari entries. Spot inspection was carried out by the revenue officials before dawari entries. Spot inspection was carried out by the revenue officials before dawari entries. Spot inspection was carried out by the revenue officials before the filing of the suit, and on the basis of such inspection, a report was prepared the filing of the suit, and on the basis of such inspection, a report was prepared the filing of the suit, and on the basis of such inspection, a report was prepared the filing of the suit, and on the basis of such inspection, a report was prepared recommending correction of the entries in favour of the defendants. The suit was recommending correction of the entries in favour of the defendants. The suit was recommending correction of the entries in favour of the defendants. The suit was recommending correction of the entries in favour of the defendants. The suit was instituted on 03.05. 1990, whereas the entries were formally corrected on 03.05.1990, whereas the entries were formally corrected on 1990, whereas the entries were formally corrected on 1990. Hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the entries 04.05.1990. Hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the entries 1990. Hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the entries 1990. Hence, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari were corrected during the pendency of the suit. The in the Khasra Girdawari were corrected during the pendency of the suit. The in the Khasra Girdawari were corrected during the pendency of the suit. The in the Khasra Girdawari were corrected during the pendency of the suit. The been initiated prior thereto, and the inspection correction proceedings had already been initiated prior thereto, and the inspection been initiated prior thereto, and the inspection correction proceedings had already had been conducted even earlier. had been conducted even earlier. 16. The corrected Khasra Girdawari entries thus show the possession of The corrected Khasra Girdawari entries thus show the possession of The corrected Khasra Girdawari entries thus show the possession of The corrected Khasra Girdawari entries thus show the possession of the defendants and not of the plaintiffs. Even if the admissibility of the patanama is the defendants and not of the plaintiffs. Even if the admissibility of the patanama is the defendants and not of the plaintiffs. Even if the admissibility of the patanama is the defendants and not of the plaintiffs. Even if the admissibility of the patanama is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2644-2000 2000 (O&M) -7- - kept aside, the documentary evidence in the form of Khasra Girdawari entries, documentary evidence in the form of Khasra Girdawari entries, documentary evidence in the form of Khasra Girdawari entries, supported by the spot inspection carried out by the revenue authorities prior to the supported by the spot inspection carried out by the revenue authorities prior to the supported by the spot inspection carried out by the revenue authorities prior to the supported by the spot inspection carried out by the revenue authorities prior to the institution of the suit, clearly establishes possession of the defendants over the suit institution of the suit, clearly establishes possession of the defendants over the suit institution of the suit, clearly establishes possession of the defendants over the suit institution of the suit, clearly establishes possession of the defendants over the suit property. 17. a settled principle of law that entries in the Khasra Girdawari are It is a settled principle of law that entries in the Khasra Girdawari are a settled principle of law that entries in the Khasra Girdawari are It is the best evidence of possession unless rebutted by cogent and convincing material. the best evidence of possession unless rebutted by cogent and convincing material. the best evidence of possession unless rebutted by cogent and convincing material. the best evidence of possession unless rebutted by cogent and convincing material. No such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the No such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the No such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the No such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the ed to lead any independent evidence from the village or any plaintiffs have failed to lead any independent evidence from the village or any ed to lead any independent evidence from the village or any plaintiffs have fail other source to prove their cultivating possession over the land after 1987. other source to prove their cultivating possession over the land after 1987. other source to prove their cultivating possession over the land after 1987. 18. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs ty on the date of filing of the suit. were not in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. ty on the date of filing of the suit. were not in possession of the suit proper Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are affirmed, and the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. affirmed, and the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. affirmed, and the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Conclusion 19. ppellate Court In these circumstances, the findings of the lower First Appellate Court In these circumstances, the findings of the lower First A In these circumstances, the findings of the lower First A cannot be faulted. The plaintiff, having failed to prove cannot be faulted. The plaintiff possession on the date having failed to prove the possession on the date justified. The of filing of the suit, the dismissal of the suit was, therefore, justified. The of filing of the suit, the dismissal of the suit was of filing of the suit, the dismissal of the suit was of the learned Lower Appellate Court are of the learned Lower Appellate Court a judgment and decree dated 22.04.2000 of the learned Lower Appellate Court a judgment and decree appeal accordingly upheld, though on slightly different reasoning, and the present appeal accordingly upheld, though on slightly different reasoning, and the accordingly upheld, though on slightly different reasoning, and the stands dismissed. stands dismissed. 20.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. 2025 September 09, 2025 tripti MANDEEP PANNU) (MANDEEP PANNU JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document