JAI SINGH Vs. BIRU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the short point for decision is whether the onus of the issue placed by the trial Court on the plaintiff is correct or not.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that he is in exclusive possession of the land in Khasra Nos. 22, 24 and 25 as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 19GG -67 right from the year 1964 as a co -sharer and that defendant No. 1 has got no concern, nor any possession on the land nor he is entitled to interfere in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 has somehow got entries of possession made in the Khasra -Girdawari in his favour which are against the factual position at the spot and he, therefore, prayed for a consequential relief of an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The defendant averred in his reply that he too had his joint possession with defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 had in the absence of the defendant No. 1 wrongly got their exclusive possession entered in the Jamabandi and, therefore, he had got the same corrected by making an application before the revenue authorities. They had made a thorough inquiry into the matter and it was only thereafter that they corrected the revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari. The plaintiff went to the Assistant Collector but there he was unsuccessful. In his replication the plaintiff reiterated the same facts as earlier pleaded in the plaint about the correction of the Khasra Girdawari. He averred that he had got the same made in collusion with the revenue staff. He admitted that he had gone in appeal to the Assistant Collector against the decision of the Revenue Officer lout he withdrew and got the appeal dismissed as he had simultaneously filed the present suit also. The Court framed the following issue as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel's submission is that in view of the fact that there was a prima facie case in the sense that the Jamabandi entries were in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the Court had granted an injunction and on that account the onus also should have been placed on the opposite party to show that the revenue entries showing the exclusive possession were incorrect or wrong and in fact it was the defendant who was in possession.