JARNAIL SINGH Vs. MARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Muktsar holding that plaintiff-respondent is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in her peaceful possession and from dispossessing her forcibly. The only question which arises for the consideration in this appeal is whether under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for brevity 'the Act') the entries made in the record of rights would be presumed to be correct ? The learned trial Court had ignored the entries in the revenue record as contained in jamabandies and khasra girdwaris Ex. P.1 to P.6 and came to the conclusion that defendant- appellant must be held to be in possession on the basis of the sale deeds executed in his favour on 2.2.1995 and 24.9.1996 Exs. D.1 and D.2. However, the Addl. District Judge found that such entries cannot be ignored because the presumption of truth is attached to such entries.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent is that the suit land situated at village Shaib Chand, Tehsil Girdderbaha was originally in possession of her husband Joginder Singh who was this owner. The aforementioned land as inherited by her and her children after the death of her husband. However, the defendant-appellant took the plea that the he had purchased the same alongwith some other land from the original owner vide two sale deeds dated 2.2.1995 and 24.9.1996 Ex.D.1 and D.2 respectively. He also claimed possession of the suit land on the basis of the recitals in the sale deed. He examined the scribe of the sale deed namely Mohan Lal Arora and Mukand Lal Baghal as DW 3 and DW 4, and the attesting witnesses of both the sale deeds. Shri Kartar Singh, Lambardar DW 5 have also been examined. Plaintiff-respondent has produced on record the entries made in khasra girdawaris for the years 1995 to 2000 as Ex. P.2 to Ex.P.5. The entries of jamabandi have also been produced on record as P1 P6. It is in these circumstances that the ld. Addl. District Judge concluded that the entries in the revenue record must be extended to the plaintiff-respondent and held as under :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Addl. District Judge because Section 44 of the Act provides that entries made in the record of rights must be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. Section 44 of the Act reads as under :