GIAN SINGH Vs. DHIRENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for sion has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiffs brought the suit for possession of the suit land on the allegations that they were the owners of the suit land and that the defendant was in possession thereof without any right or title. The defence taken in the written statement was that the defendant was a tenant under one Vidya Wanti, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. However, it was not made clear in the written statement when this land was taken on rent and what were the terms and conditions thereof. According to the defendant Vidya Wanti was the owner of the suit land and he could not be dispossessed by the civil Court and that his dispossession, if any, could take place under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. From the record, it appeared that Shrimati Vidya Wanti was the mother of the plaintiffs because in the jamabandi Exhibit P.1 it is mentioned that plaintiffs are sons of Smt. Sushila Devi and that Smt. Sushila Devi is the daughter of Smt. Vidya Wanti. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the trial Court found that the entries in the khasra girdawari were contrary and no reliance could be placed on them which have been changed from time to time at the sweet-will of the Patwari. It was, therefore, held that the defendant was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land. In view of that finding, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the findings of the lower appellate Court if the defendant had taken possession of the land on account of the absence of the owner it was easy for him to get any sort of entry made in the revenue record - false or correct. He could have got an entry made that he was paying batai at a particular rate. Therefore, apart from this reason that the revenue record is inconsistent, reliance on the revenue record could not be placed for the additional reason that in the absence of real owner, the defendant could have got made any entry in his favour.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the entries in the revenue record, it was amply proved that the appellant was a tenant under the original owner Smt. Vidya Wanti and that the view taken by the Courts below in this behalf was wrong and misconceived. According to the learned counsel, there was every presumption to the entries in the revenue record. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mangal v. Thari Pam, 1984 RRR 438 . The learned counsel also submitted that the suit land was banjar qadim and that it was the tenant who had made it cultivable. When the prices of the land had increased the present suit was filed.