DAUD Vs. ZILA PARISHAD, PALWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED as prayed for. Main Appeal : Plaintiffs Daud and Harun, having been non-suited by both the courts below, have filed this second appeal. Plaintiffs/appellants filed suit against defendants/respondents Zila Parishad, Faridabad (now Palwal) and Gram Panchayat of Village Kot alleging that the plaintiffs' ancestors were owners in possession of the suit property measuring 03 kanals. In jamabandi for the year 1932-33, plaintiffs' ancestor Kamlu has been recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property. Now, plaintiffs are owners in possession thereof. However, ownership of the suit land was changed in the name of District Board, District Gurgaon (predecessor of respondent no.1) from the name of Kamlu without any reason. The said entry is illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property and defendants have no concern therewith and revenue entries depicting defendants to be owners in possession of the suit property are illegal, null and void and are liable to be corrected. Plaintiffs also sought consequential permanent injunction.

(2.) DEFENDANT no.1 contested the suit and broadly denied the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that on the death of Kamlu, the suit property was inherited by his minor son Abdul-ul-Rehman Khan vide mutation no. 3657 dated 19.02.1934. Thereafter, Med Singh (father of plaintiff no.1 and grandfather of plaintiff no.2) as guardian of minor Abdul-ul-Rehman Khan donated the suit land to District Board, Gurgaon for running Madersa (school) and accordingly mutation no.3666 dated 25.04.1934 was sanctioned and since then, defendant no.1 is owner in possession of the suit property continuously and it is being used as compound of the school. Nobody raised any objection to the same since April 1934 i.e. for 70 years. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendant no.2 Gram Panchayat pleaded that it has no concern with the suit property and it has been pleaded unnecessarily.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants contended that plaintiffs being descendants and heirs of Kamlu � the original owner of the suit property, have inherited the same and are owners in possession thereof. The contention cannot be accepted. Version of defendant no.1 is substantiated by the documentary evidence. Mutation Ex.P-2 of the suit land was sanctioned in favour of District Board in April 1934 and since thereafter, defendant no.1 (including its predecessor) has been recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property in all the subsequent jamabandis, which have been produced in evidence. The suit was instituted on 23.07.2003. Thus, for almost seven decades before filing of the suit, defendant no.1 continued to be recorded as owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. The said entries were never challenged during this long period. Entries in jamabandi carry presumption of correctness. The said presumption gets further strengthened if the entries are repeated over a long period. In the instant case, practically there is nothing to rebut the aforesaid long-standing entries in revenue record spread over seven decades. It is thus apparent that defendant no.1 is owner in possession of the suit property and plaintiffs have no concern therewith. In fact, plaintiffs' predecessor i.e. father of plaintiff no.1 and grandfather of plaintiff no.2 as guardian of minor Abdul- ul-Rehman Khan donated the suit property to predecessor of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have not even challenged the said donation/gift in the present suit. The plaintiffs have also failed to link themselves with Kamlu or his son Abdul-ul-Rehman Khan � the original owner of the suit land. For the reasons aforesaid, it is apparent that plaintiffs have miserably failed to depict that they are either owners or in possession of the suit land. Concurrent finding of fact to this effect recorded by both the courts below to non-suit the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. In fact, no other finding can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference, nor any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being meritless, is dismissed in limine.