PHINNO Vs. PRITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants Mst. Phinno had filed a suit for joint possession of 1/3rd share in land measuring 38 kanals 6 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 16, Killa Nos. 8/2, 9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 12, 13 and 14/1 and rectangle No. 8, Killa Nos. 11 and 20/1. According to the allegations in the plaint the suit land was owned by her & the two defendants who are her sisters in equal shares. Thus she had 1/3 share in the suit land and is entitled to its joint possession to the event of that share and also had a right to get it partitioned through revenue Court. She also pleaded that the defendants were denying her ownership in the land.

(2.) The defendants contested this suit and pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to Fauja Singh; father of the parties. One of the suit land, the plaintiff has sold land comprising in Killa Nos. 8/2 and 13 of rectangle 16 to defendant No. 2 Mst. Dipo, by means of sale-deed dated 21st July, 1967 and gifted land of Killa No. 9/1 of rectangle No. 16 and Killa Nos. 11 and 20/1 of rectangle No. 8 vide gifted deed dated 1st June, 1966 and the said gift had been admitted by the plaintiff in an earlier suit and thus she had no share in the land. The learned trial Court held that according to jamabandi filed on the record Mst. Phinno had 1/3 share in the suit land but from the remarks column of Jamabandi Ex. D5 for the year 1970-71 the plaintiff had already sold as well as gifted her share in Killa Nos. 8/2, 9/1 (4 kanals) and 13 of rectangle No. 16, killa Nos. 11 and 20/s of rectangle No. 8 and that she was owner of the remaining land comprised in Killa Nos. 8/1 (1 Kanal 7 marlas), 9/2, 9/3, 12 and 14/1 of rectangle No. 16 to the extent of 1/3rd share. The plaintiff's suit was accordingly decreed in respect of that land, feeling aggrieved the defendants filed an appeal which was heard by learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with Enhanced Appellate Powers) Amritsar. He held that according to the entries in the column of the jamabandi for the 1970-71 the plaintiff had alienated by gift and sale 20 kanals 15 marlas which was more than her 1/3rd share in the suit land measuring 38 kanals 5 marlas. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) In the remarks column of the jamabandi Exhibit D5 of the year 1970-71 filed by the defendants it is recorded that mutation No. 452 in respect of gift of 16 kanals of land detailed in that column effected by Mst. Phinno in favour of Smt. Dipo had been sanctioned. It is also mentioned in that column that mutation No. 453 in respect of sale of 4 kanals 15 marlas of land comprised in killa numbers detailed in that column by Mst. Phinno in favour of Mst. Dipo had been sanctioned. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that under section 44 of the Punjab Land Tenancy Act only presumption of correctness is attached to the entries made in the remarks column of the jamabandi. I am of the opinion that the said argument has force. These entries in the remark column only show that the above mutations have been sanctioned. The change has not been incorporated in the various columns of the record of right i.e. jamabandi. Hence these entries are not evidence of title.