2014:HHC:11899 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 254 of 2009 Reserved on: 27.04.2026 Date of Decision: 30.06.2026 Ajay Kumar & others ...Appellants Versus Joginder Singh ...Respondents _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for appellants No. 1, 2 and 4. Name of appellant No.3 stands deleted on 14.06.2026. For the respondent : Mr Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2014:HHC:11899 Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. I, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial court). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking vacant possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 176, Khatauni No. 369, Khasra No. 1155, measuring 0-02-50 Hectare meters, situated in Mohal and Mauza Larth Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), as per the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1995-96. It was asserted that the plaintiff was recorded as a non- occupancy tenant of the suit land. He is in exclusive possession of the suit land. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, namely Kailash Chand, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got his name recorded in the column of possession. The defendants are interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit land without any right to do so. The plaintiff became the 3 2014:HHC:11899 owner of the suit land after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The defendants dispossessed the plaintiff, taking advantage of the wrong revenue entries. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above. 3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of locus standi, the suit being barred by limitation, the defendants having become the owners by way of adverse possession, and the suit having not been properly valued for the court fee and jurisdiction. The contents of the plaint were denied on merit. It was asserted that the defendant came from Pathankot. Daya Ram gave him land measuring 4 marlas for the construction of a residential house. The plaintiff constructed a residential house in Khasra No. 677/548. The plaintiff got himself wrongly recorded to be in possession of land measuring 1 Kanal 17 marlas as a non- occupancy tenant. He was not paying any rent to the real owner. The suit land was purchased by Kailash Chand, the real uncle of the defendant, from Vaid Daya Ram. The defendants constructed a residential house on the suit land and started cultivating the vacant land located adjacent to the house. A writing was executed in favour of Kailash Chand. The plaintiff was only 4 2014:HHC:11899 found in possession of land measuring 0-01-16 Hectare meters, which was allotted Khasra No. 1152. The possession of Kailash Chand and thereafter the defendants are open, continuous and hostile, and they have become the owners by way of adverse possession. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. No replication was filed. 5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 23.10.2002: - 1. Whether the plaintiff was Gair Marrussi Tenant over the suit land and has become owner by operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act qua the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 5. Whether the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession over the suit land, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief. 5 2014:HHC:11899 6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined himself (PW-1). The defendant No.1- Ajay Kumar examined himself (DW-1), Suraj Prakash (DW-2) and Ilaichi Ram (DW-3). 7. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land continuously. The plea taken by the defendants that Vaid Daya Ram had given 4 marlas of land to the plaintiff for the construction of his house was not acceptable. The defendants produced an agreement (Ext.DW-2/A), which could not be connected to the suit land. The entries in favour of Kailash Chand were recorded without following due process. The plaintiff, being in possession of the suit land, was entitled to protect his possession from the whole world except the true owner. The suit was within the limitation. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative. Issue No. 2 in affirmative. Issues Nos. 3 to 6 in the negative and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The Appellate 6 2014:HHC:11899 Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the possession of the plaintiff was continuous with the consent of the real owner. The document set up by the defendants could not be connected to the suit land. The change in the entry in favour of Kailash Chand was unauthorised, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief on the strength of his possession. There was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, the defendants filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 15.10.2009: - 1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and also Ext.DW-2/A and against the settled position of law? 10. I have heard Mr Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Pranjal Munjal, learned counsel for the appellants 1,2 and 4 (name of appellants No. 3 stood deleted vide order dated 14.06.2016) and Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior 7 2014:HHC:11899 Advocate, assisted by Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel, for the respondent. 11. Mr Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, for appellants 1,2 and 4, submitted that the column of rent does not show that the plaintiff is paying any rent to the owners. Therefore, he cannot claim to be a tenant of the suit land. The nature of the suit land is recorded to be Gair Mumkin Abadi, and no tenancy could be created in respect of the same. The defendants had proved that their predecessor, Kailash Chand, had purchased the suit land, and the learned Courts below erred in holding that the defendants had no right over the suit land. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. He relied upon the following judgments in his submissions: Kapil Dev vs Kalawati 1998 (2) CLJ (H.P) 326; Mangsharoo vs Sarfu 2011 (3) Him. L.R. 1412; State of H.P. vs Ajay Vij 2011(2) Shimla Law Cases 42; Ganga Devi vs. Ashok Kumar 2011 Latest Himachal Law Journal (H.P) 721; and 8 2014:HHC:11899 Vidhya Devi vs. Kashmir Singh 2014 Latest Himachal Law Journal, H.P. 2026; 12. Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submitted that the plea taken by the defendant that Vaid Daya Ram had given 4 malas of land to him was not proved on record. The learned Courts below had rightly held that the defendants had failed to show any right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendants were trespassers and were rightly ordered to deliver the possession to the plaintiff. There is no infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 13. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Substantial question of No.1 14. The defendants relied upon an agreement (Ext.DW- 2/A) in support of their claim that their predecessor, Kailash Chand, had purchased the suit land. The contents of the agreement (Ext.DW-2/A) do not support this contention. It only 9 2014:HHC:11899 mentions that Kailash Chand had constructed the house and a shop on the land measuring 13 marlas. He had been in possession of the land measuring 10-11 marlas on the land of Kamla Devi for four years. Vipin Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Sandeep Kumar were the owners of the land. Kamla Devi had obtained the permission from the learned Sessions Judge, sold the land to Kailash Chand, and an agreement was executed to this effect. 15. The learned Courts below had rightly held that the land described in the agreement (Ext.DW-2/A) is not connected to the suit land. It only mentions that land measuring 23 marlas was sold to Kailash Chand. Further, the language of the agreement (Ext.DW-2/A) shows that Kamla Devi had conveyed the title to Kailash Chand. This agreement is dated 17.11.1979. Since the document had conveyed title to Kailash Chand, it is to be treated as a Sale Deed, and it was compulsorily required to be registered. However, it was not registered and cannot be looked into as a document conveying the title. 16. The recitals of the agreement show that Kamla Devi was not the owner, but her children were the owners. She claimed to have obtained the permission from the learned 10 2014:HHC:11899 Sessions Judge, but no such permission was brought on record. Therefore, the agreement could not have the effect of conveying the title to Kailash Chand, and the learned Courts below had rightly held that the agreement was not sufficient to confer the title upon Kailash Chand. 17. Joginder Singh (PW-1) stated that he has been in possession of the suit land since the year 1955-56 as a non- occupancy tenant. Earlier, Nihatu was the owner. She had never dispossessed the plaintiff. The entry in favour of Kailash Chand was wrongly made, and the defendants encroached upon the suit land in the year 1993. 18. His testimony is duly corroborated by the revenue record. Copy of Jamabandi (Ext.P-1) shows that Khasra No. 548 min measuring 1 Kanal 17 marlas was recorded in possession of the plaintiff as a non-occupancy tenant. The column of rent mentions that the plaintiff was cultivating the land without any rent with the consent of the owner. There is an entry in the column of remarks that, as per mutation No. 481, Nihatu had sold the land to Kishore Chand, son of Daya Ram. The entry in the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (Ext.P-2) also shows that the plaintiff was in possession of old Khasra No. 880 11 2014:HHC:11899 and new Khasra No. 548. Copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 shows the plaintiff to be in possession of Khasra No. 548 min, and the name of the owner has been mentioned as Nihatu. 19. Misal Haquiat for the year 1981-82 shows that Khasra No. 677 /548 min (old) and Khasra Nos. 1153 and 1155 (new) are recorded in possession of Kailash Chand. There is an entry that name of Kailash Chand was recorded as per the file No. 765/84 decided on 05.01.1983. Copy of the jamabandi for the year 1975-76 (Ext.PX-4) mentions that the plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No. 1677/548 min measuring 1 Kanal 17 marlas. Thus, it is apparent that the plaintiff was continuously recorded in possession of the suit land. The name of Kailash Chand was incorporated as per the order passed by the Settlement, Naib Tehsildar. The copy of the order was not produced to show why the Settlement Naib Tehsildar had recorded the entry in favour of Kailash Chand. Therefore, the change in favour of Kailash Chand has to be treated as unauthorised. It was laid down by this Court in Suresh Chand & Others Versus Gurdas Ram and Others 2003 (3) Shim. LC 304, that where no material was brought on record to show as to how the 12 2014:HHC:11899 change has taken place, the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue record will stand rebutted, and such an entry cannot be relied upon. It was observed: - “10. Admittedly, the revenue entries till Kharif 1972 record the defendants and their predecessors in interest as owners of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest to be in possession thereof as non-occupancy tenants on payment of half of the agricultural produce as rent. Ex. P2 and P3 are the copies of jamabandies for the years 1959-60 and 1971-72, respectively, depicting the abovesaid position. The entries in favour of the plaintiffs showing them to be in possession as non-occupancy tenants came to be changed in Rabi 1973, and as a result of such change, the defendants have come to be recorded as in possession of the land in dispute as owners. Ex. P4 is the copy of khasra Girdawari for the period Kharif 1972 to Rabi 1974. A perusal of the same shows that possession of the plaintiffs is recorded as non-occupancy tenants till Kharif 1972, and from Rabi 1973, the defendants are recorded to be in possession. The entries as to possession since Rabi 1973 are shown to have been changed in favour of the defendants on the basis of some document/writing dated 1.4.1973. Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act attaches a legal presumption of truth to the entries in the record of rights. Such a Section provides: - "Any entry made in the record of rights in accordance with law for the time being in force, or a periodical in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor." 11. There is no denying that the earlier revenue entries as per the record of rights (Ex. P3) till 1971-72 were in favour of the plaintiffs, showing them to be in possession of the 13 2014:HHC:11899 land in dispute as non-occupancy tenants. Subsequent revenue entries since Rabi 1973 till date are in favour of the defendants, showing them to be in possession as owners of the land in dispute. 12. Relying upon the provisions contained in Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (quoted above) it was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that presumption of truth is attached to the later revenue entries which are in favour of the defendants and as such the learned first appellate court has gravely erred in relying upon the earlier revenue entries by completely ignoring the documentary evidence comprising of Ex. Dl and D2, which evidence that the entries in favour of the defendants were lawfully changed. 13. Undisputedly, when there is variance between earlier and the later entries, the presumption of truth is attached to the later entries till such presumption is rebutted. 14. The provisions contained in Section 45, H.P. Land Revenue Act are similar to the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Durga Singh of Solan v. Tholu and others, 1962 PLJ 88 (SC), has held that these provisions give a presumptive value to the entries in the revenue record and where there is a conflict, it is the later entry which must prevail. It was further held that from the language of the Section itself, it follows that where a new entry is substituted for an old entry, it is that new entry which will take the place of the old one and will be entitled to presumption of correctness until and unless it is established to be wrong or substituted by another entry. 15. Again, while dealing with the similar provisions contained in Section 44, Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga (deceased) and others v. Milkhi Ram and others, 1969 PLJ 105 (SC), observed: - "Where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries and the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the revenue authorities showing how the 14 2014:HHC:11899 change was made, although presumption (under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act) would be in favour of the later entries, but that presumption was a rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakenly, there being no material to justify the change of entries."(Emphasis supplied) 16. To the similar effect, it has been held by this Court in Chaudhary Sada Ram and others v. Chaudhary Amarnath, ILR 1984 H.P 509, and in Jahlu Ram v. Major Lai Singh, 1998(1) Shim. L.C. 343. 17. In the present case, as stated above, the revenue entries till Kharif 1972 (as per jamabandi) Ex. P3 for the year 1971-72) were in favour of the plaintiffs, showing them to be in possession of the land in dispute as non- occupancy tenants. Such revenue entries as per Ex. P4 came to be changed in favour of defendants with effect from Rabi 1973 on the basis of some alleged writing dated 1.4.1973.” 20. Therefore, the learned Courts had rightly ignored the entry in favour of Kailash Chand. 21. Suraj Parkash (DW-2) stated that he could identify the signatures of Kamala Devi. His testimony does not help in determining the possession. 22. Ilaichi Ram (DW-3) stated that he had not seen the plaintiff cultivating the suit land, whereas Kailash Chand used to plant vegetables adjacent to his land. He volunteered to say that the plaintiff was residing in the suit land for 35-36 years. He also claimed that he is a resident of Jawali, which is a different 15 2014:HHC:11899 panchayat. He could not tell the names of the owners of the land located near the suit land. 23. His statement is not sufficient to show the possession of the defendants. He stated in his examination-in- chief that Kailash Chand was in possession and in the cross- examination that the plaintiff was in possession. He could not describe the ownership and possession of the land located adjacent to the suit land. He has not mentioned any reason as to why he should be aware of the possession of the suit land alone. He is a resident of a different village, and he has no special means of knowledge; hence, the learned Courts below had rightly discarded his testimony. 24. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession. This is a reasonable inference from the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and there is no perversity in it. Once it was found that the plaintiff was in possession and the defendants had no right to retain the possession, the plaintiff would be entitled to the restoration of possession based on his possessory title. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya vs Anil Panjwani 2003 (7) SCC 350, that a person in 16 2014:HHC:11899 possession is entitled to protect his possession against the whole world except the true owner, and if he is wrongly dispossessed, he is entitled to the restoration of the possession. It was observed: - 36. So, the person in possession may not have title to the property yet, if he has been inducted into possession by the rightful owner and is in peaceful and settled possession of such property, he is entitled in law to protect the possession until dispossessed by due process of law by a person having a title better than what he has. A person in possession of the property cannot be forcibly dispossessed by another rank trespasser, and even if the latter does so, the former may be entitled to restoration of possession, because the law respects peaceful possession and frowns upon the person who takes the law into his own hands. 25. In the present case, the defendants had not shown any title in themselves, and the learned Courts below had rightly decreed the plaintiff’s suit. 26. Learned Trial Court held that the civil Court cannot grant a declaration that the plaintiff had become the owner after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. This finding will not help the defendants. Even if the plaintiff was put in possession by the real owner without the payment of any rent, his possession is required to be protected. 17 2014:HHC:11899 27. The judgments cited at the bar deal with non- payment of rent, the status of the tenant, and tenancy on the Abadi deh. These questions do not arise in the present case, and no advantage can be derived from the cited judgments. 28. In view of the above, there is no misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record, including the agreement (Ext.DW-2/A). The findings of the learned Courts below are not contrary to the evidence and the settled position of law; hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Final Order 29. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 30. The record of the learned Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th June, 2026 (ravinder)