Surinder Sarup, J.@mdashThis second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Surjit Singh, District Judge, Una dated 3-6-1989 whereby the appeal of the Defendant-Respondent Babu (since deceased-L.Rs. brought on record) has been allowed and the suit of the Plaintiff-Appellant, which was decreed by the trial Court has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree of that Court. It may be mentioned here that the suit was decreed by the Court of Shri M.R. Chauhan, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Amb, District Una on 26-09-1986.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Amar Nath deceased, the predecessor of the Appellant Sanjay Chaudhary filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land By way of consequential relief, he prayed for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Respondent-Defendant Babu from interfering with his possession. In the alternative, he prayed for possession over the suit land.
3. It was pleaded in the plaint that the Plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land from the very beginning and the entries in the revenue records were also in his favour. The suit land is measuring 6 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 5800 situated in Village Takaria, Tehsil Amb, District Una. A few days prior to the institution of the suit, the Defendant threatened to disturb the possession. Hence the suit. In the alternative, a prayer had been made for possession, on the ground that if during the pendency of the suit, the Defendant succeeds in dispossessing the Plaintiff forcibly, a decree for possession may be passed. The original Plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative was brought on record.
4. In his written statement, the Defendant-Respondent denied the possession of the Plaintiff-Appellant over the suit land. It was pleaded that the disputed land had been in actual physical possession of the Defendant as tenant at will for the last 20 to 25 years and he applied to the Naib Tehsildar for the correction of entries in his favour. When the Plaintiff Appellant felt that the Naib Tehsildar would correct the entries in the revenue records, because on the sport the physical possession was with the Defendant, the Plaintiff got panicky and filed the suit.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? O.P.P.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is a tenant at will of the suit land, as alleged? O.P.D,
3. Relief.
6. The finding under issue No. 1 was that the Plaintiff is the owner but the possession over the suit land is that of the Defendant without title. Issue No. 2 was also stated to be covered under Issue No 1. As per the trial Court judgment, the suit for possession has been decreed giving rise to the first appeal, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been reversed and the suit has been dismissed, hence the present second appeal.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record The learned first appellate Court has non-suited the Plaintiff Appellant solely on the basis of his alleged admission in cross- examination as PW 1 that he had filed a case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of SDM Amb and the allegation in that case was that the Defendant had forcibly removed the crop of sugarcane from the suit land. The other witness, namely, Karam Chand denied that the sugarcane crop had been harvested by the Defendant. Moreover, the revenue entries in the shape of Jamabandi are continuously in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant from Ex P-1onwards. He has been shown as owner in self cultivation of the suit land throughout in the revenue record The conclusion of the learned first appellate Court that the presumption of truthfulness that attaches to the entries in the revenue entries in the Jamabandi has been rebutted in the present case by the stray admission of the Plaintiff- Appellant that the Defendant forcibly cut the sugarcane crop from the suit land regarding which proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. are going on is unsupportable in law.
8. It is the settled law that presumption of truth attaches to the entries in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi u/s 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, similar being the position in the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (Section 45) and the same are rebuttable only by cogent and reliable evidence The stray admission of the Plaintiff-Appellant in the present case that his crop has been forcibly cut by the Defendant- Respondent cannot have the effect of falsifying the revenue entries.
9. In fairness to the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Respondent, he has taken me through the evidence led by the Defendant in the shape of his own statement and that of his witnesses i.e. D.W. 1 Shri Bhagat Ram, D.W. 2 Shri Blandu Ram, D.W. 3 Shri Parkash Chand, D.W. 4 Shri Harnam Dass, D.W. 5 Arnrit Kumar. D.W. 6 Sanvan Singh HC, D.W. 7 Natha Ram and D.W. 8 Lakhu Ram. On the basis of the same, he has vehemently argued that the possession of the Defendant-Respondent over the suit land is proved to be continuous for the last 20 to 25 years from the date of filing of the suit. Be that as it may, the oral evidence led by the Defendant cannot have the effect of overriding the documentary evidence in the shape of entries in the revenue records i.e. Jamabandi which are in favour of the Plaintiff Appellant as regards the suit land. In these circumstances, I fail to see how the learned trial Court has held otherwise. However, since no appeal or cross objections were filed before the first appellate Court, that finding and decree is final qua the parties.
10. To sum, the Plaintiff is proved to be the owner in possession of the suit land as per the entries in the revenue record, i.e. Jamabandi. Assuming the finding of the trial Court to be correct that he was deprived of the possession forcibly during the pendency of the suit or prior to the institution of the same, he was rightly given a decree of possession after holding him to be the owner in possession there of.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. Put in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
