IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2795-1995 (O&M) Rohtash thr his LR and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Ram Chander and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 29.01.2026 Pronounced on: 02.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Mi#al, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are before this Court assailing the judg- ment and decree dated 16.11.1995 passed by the learned first Appellate Court, Rewari whereby the suit for permanent injunc-on filed by the sole plain-ff Ram Chander was decreed by reversing the judgment of dismissal dated 24.02.1993 passed by the learned trial Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Rewari. 2. For the sake of clarity, the par-es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plain-ff ins-tuted a suit for permanent injunc-on claiming that he was a gair maurusi tenant in possession of the suit land measuring 18 Kanal 10 Marla, detailed in paragraph 2(iii) of the plaint, for the last about 15 years under Smt. Imar- Devi (defendant No.1), and that the defendants were threat- ening to dispossess him forcibly. It was pleaded that rent for the years 1983–84 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.02 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2795-1995 (O&M) and 1984–85 had been paid and duly acknowledged by rent receipts Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E. It was further pleaded that in earlier li-ga-on, Smt. Imar- Devi had admi#ed receipt of chakota money through money orders from the plain-ff. The suit land was stated to be part of a larger holding measuring 91 Kanal 13 Marla, jointly owned by Shiv Charan, Phool Chand, Smt. Harbai, Smt. Bhagwa- and Smt. Imar- Devi, each holding an equal share. 4. Defendant No.1 Smt. Imar- Devi did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte on 24.01.1989. Defendant No.5 Shiv Charan ap- peared but did not file a wri#en statement, while defendant No.6 admi#ed the claim of the plain-ff. The suit was contested only by defendant Nos. 2 to 4, who denied the plain-ff’s possession and asserted that they were owners in posses- sion, having purchased the land from various co-sharers including Smt. Imar- Devi. They disputed the alleged tenancy and explained the admissions made by Imar- Devi in earlier proceedings, contending that the same were incorrect. 5. Upon framing of issues and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 24.02.1993, primarily on the ground that although the plain-ff claimed to be a tenant for 15 years, his possession was not reflec- ted in the revenue record, and that the rent receipts and documents relied upon by him were not sa-sfactorily linked to the suit land. 6. The learned first Appellate Court, however, on a reappraisal of the en-re evidence, oral as well as documentary, reversed the findings of the trial Court. It recorded a categorical finding that the plain-ff was in possession of the suit land as a tenant under Smt. Imar- Devi over her specific share, and that the subsequent purchase of her share by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not ex-nguish the plain-ff’s tenancy. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 7. Assailing the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the plain-ff’s claim of tenancy for 1 year prior to filing of the suit i.e., since 1969 is belied by the revenue record, which does not reflect his pos- session in any capacity. It is argued that revenue entries carry a presump-on of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.02 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2795-1995 (O&M) correctness, which could not have been rebu#ed merely by rent receipts and private correspondence. It is thus urged that the first Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the contes-ng respondent-plain-ff submits that the first Appellate Court, being the final Court on facts, has me-cu- lously examined the evidence and recorded findings which do not suffer from perversity, warran-ng no interference. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and examined the record. 10. The record reveals that the total land measuring 91 Kanal 13 Marla was jointly owned by five co-sharers, each having 1/5th share. The first Appel- late Court has no-ced that all co-sharers were in separate and exclusive posses- sion of specific por-ons of their respec-ve shares. It stands admi#ed that Shiv Charan, Smt. Harbai and Smt. Bhagwa-, aFer selling their shares to defendant Nos. 2 to 4, handed over possession of the specific killa numbers in their posses- sion to these vendees. The plain-ff’s asser-on in paragraph 2(ii) of the plaint detailing the specific por-ons held by these co-sharers was not controverted by the contes-ng defendants in their wri#en statement. 11. The Appellate Court further no-ced that another co-sharer, Phool Chand, had mortgaged 18 Kanal of land to one Mangal son of Ram Narain, who was in possession thereof. Likewise, Smt. Imar- Devi was found to be in posses- sion of her specific share measuring 18 Kanal 10 Marla, described in paragraph 2(iii) of the plaint, over which the plain-ff claimed tenancy. 12. The plain-ff’s possession as tenant under Smt. Imar- Devi was cor- roborated by rent receipts Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E, issued through Phool Chand, brother of Imar- Devi, who used to collect rent on her behalf. This fact was further corroborated by le#ers Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G, which established that the son of Imar- Devi had sought accounts of chakota money sent by the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.02 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2795-1995 (O&M) plain-ff. Addi-onally, in earlier li-ga-on ini-ated by Shiv Charan, Smt. Imar- Devi had admi#ed receipt of chakota money through money orders from the plain-ff. 13. The Appellate Court also took note of the fact that Smt. Imar- Devi died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representa-ves neither con- tested the claim nor rebu#ed the plain-ff’s evidence. Further, admissions made by defendant Rohtash (DW) revealed that Imar- Devi used to give her land for cul-va-on to different persons, which would not have been possible, had she not been in possession of specific killa numbers. Even aFer purchasing her share in August 1984, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not take possession of specific killa numbers from Imar- Devi. 14. On the cumula-ve apprecia-on of the evidence, the first Appellate Court rightly concluded that although the plain-ff’s tenancy was not reflected in the revenue record and there was no wri#en lease deed, the presump-on arising from revenue entries stood rebu#ed by overwhelming oral and docu- mentary evidence, including admissions of the defendants themselves. 15. It is well se#led that revenue entries, though carrying a presump- -on of correctness, are not conclusive and can be rebu#ed by cogent evidence. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are based on proper appreci- a-on of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or misreading of evidence. In a second appeal, interference with such findings of fact is impermissible. 16. However, it deserves to be clarified that once defendant Nos. 2 to 4 purchased the share of Smt. Imar- Devi, the plain-ff, who was her tenant, would thereaFer be deemed to be a tenant under her vendees. 17. Consequently, while the decree of permanent injunc-on is upheld, it is clarified that the plain-ff can be dispossessed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 only in accordance with law. Page 4 of 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.02 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2795-1995 (O&M) 18. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, subject to the above clarifica-on. 19. Pending applica-on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 02.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 02.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.02 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document