SHRI RAM HER Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 08.7.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Ram Chander and Ors. seeking permanent injunction had been dismissed. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007 the judgment and decree of the trial judge had been reversed; suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the factual matrix is as follows:

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been countered. It is pointed out that the Consolidation Proceedings had been completed in the year 1972; there is a provision under The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) to file an appeal within a stipulated period; this provision had not been adhered to by the appellants/defendants; they had given up all their rights. They have not disputed the record of the Consolidation Proceedings; only defence being that the entries were incorrectly recorded; yet the appellant did not take any action against the said record. The impugned judgment has not recorded any finding on title or ownership; the suit was merely for injunction as the plaintiff was confident about his ownership and possession qua the suit property. Reliance has been placed upon (1996) 3 SCR 617 Abdul Waheed Vs. Bhawani to support a submission that entries in the register of rights is a presumptive piece of evidence and is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. In this case, the Consolidation Record and the khatoni evidenced a presumption in favour of the plaintiff of ownership and possession which the defendant had failed to rebut. For the same proposal reliance has been placed upon AIR 1976 SC 2299 M.Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminarayan Rao. It is submitted that the impugned judgment calls for no interference.