Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 128774 (PNJ)

GAJJAN SINGH v. BALAKI RAM

RSA/1259/1993 · 2025-12-12

Mandeep Pannu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RSA-1259-1993 IN THE HIGH Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Gajjan Singh (since deceased) through LRs Balaki Ram (since CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. Brief Facts 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 situated in the rev asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years 1993 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Pronounced Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Gajjan Singh (since deceased) through LRs VERSUS since deceased) through LRs and Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 situated in the revenue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1259-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-03.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 12.12.2025 Uploaded on:- 15.12.2025 operative part/full judgment ....Appellant and Others ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents No.9 to 12. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 enue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years - Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower ppellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 enue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and unlawful manner without hav They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. 3. Upon notice, the defendants conteste statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaint any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the the plaint. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the framed the following issues: 1. for? OPP. 2. 3. Findings of the Trial Court 5. From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land o prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 25/30 year 1993 (O&M) and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and unlawful manner without having any right, title or interest in the suit property. They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. Upon notice, the defendants conteste statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaint any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the framed the following issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP. Whether the plaintiffs are in posses Relief. Findings of the Trial Court From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land on the date of institution of the suit or immediately prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 25/30 years, his solitary and highly -2- and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and ing any right, title or interest in the suit property. They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession. Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the assertions contained in On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? OPP. From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their n the date of institution of the suit or immediately prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW-1 Gamma Ram stepped into the witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of s, his solitary and highly-interested - and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and ing any right, title or interest in the suit property. They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the d the suit by filing a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last iffs were not entitled to any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the assertions contained in trial court Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed sion of the suit land? OPP. From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their n the date of institution of the suit or immediately 1 Gamma Ram stepped into the witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of interested TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable village to support their assertion of possession. 6. The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986 Girdawari for 1987 possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 2 filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue authority. 7. On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for the certified copies of the order (Ex. D 1987-88 to 1989 in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in appeal, the said entries could not be ignored. 8. In view of the ab plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly dismissed. 1993 (O&M) testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable village to support their assertion of possession. The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986 Girdawari for 1987–88 and 1988–89 (Ex. P-2), did not establish their cultivating possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 2 filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for the certified copies of the order (Ex. D-1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for 88 to 1989-90 (Ex. D-2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in appeal, the said entries could not be ignored. In view of the above discussion, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided against the plaintif -3- testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable resident of the The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986–87 (Ex. P-1) and Khasra ), did not establish their cultivating possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 27.05.1988, when the suit was filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue On the other hand, the defendant Gajjan Singh appeared as DW-1 and stated that he had been in possession of the disputed land for the last 40 years, and 1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for 2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Patiala regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in ove discussion, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. decided against the plaintiffs, and the suit was - testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the resident of the The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied 1) and Khasra ), did not establish their cultivating possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon 7.05.1988, when the suit was filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue 1 and the last 40 years, and 1) and the corrected Khasra Girdawari for 2) supported his stand. These documents reflected that regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari, the defendant was shown in possession. The court held that since the order of correction had neither been set aside nor stayed in ove discussion, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had completely failed to establish their possession over the suit land and consequently were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. fs, and the suit was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. 10. The Lower Appellate Court observed successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20 years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years 1972–73, 1977– 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry suppo such a long-standing claim. 11. The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 88 and 1988–89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly w earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entri not displace long 12. The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 years prior to the filin a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of 1993 (O&M) Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court observed successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20 years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years –78 and 1981–82 as well as Khasra Girdawaris f 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry suppo standing claim. The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly w earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entri not displace long-standing entries showing the plaintiffs’ possession. The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of -4- Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs/appellants had successfully established their possession over the suit land for more than 20– years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years 82 as well as Khasra Girdawaris for the year 1991 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming possession for the last 40 years, failed to produce any Jamabandi entry supporting The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the pendency of the civil suit, and could not be relied upon particularly when the entire earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been made with the connivance of the Revenue Officer, and such corrected entries could standing entries showing the plaintiffs’ possession. The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 g of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of - Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.05.1990 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred an eal before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the evidence on record, the learned Lower that the plaintiffs/appellants had –25 years. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced Jamabandis for the years or the year 1991– 92 through additional evidence, all of which consistently reflected their cultivating possession. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents, despite claiming rting The Court further found that the Khasra Girdawari entries for 1987– 89 in favour of the defendants were stray entries, made during the hen the entire earlier revenue record stood in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also noticed that the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants appeared to have been es could The Lower Appellate Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs established their possession for more than 20 g of the suit. Since possession is the primary consideration in a suit for injunction, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to Jamabandi entries further stre 13. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent inj defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05. Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 15. Learned counsel judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit upon a correct appreciation of the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any substantive basis. 16. It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had b revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorical to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra Girdawari entries 1993 (O&M) isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to Jamabandi entries further strengthened the case of the plaintiffs/appellants. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent inj defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit upon a correct appreciation of the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any substantive basis. It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had b revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorical to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra Girdawari entries, therefore, carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted -5- isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to ngthened the case of the plaintiffs/appellants. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 26.05.1990, and decreed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by 05.1993, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives. The respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing possession of the plaintiffs were wrong and had been corrected by the competent revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari, had categorically found the appellant to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted - isolated and recently corrected entries. The presumption of truth attached to Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court unction, restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal passed by 05.1993, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1, now represented through his legal for the appellant/defendant argued that the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court is wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the record. It was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the revenue entries and oral evidence, and the lower appellate court has illegally reversed those findings without any It was further argued that the earlier revenue entries showing een corrected by the competent revenue authorities after due spot inspection and verification. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector, while deciding the application moved by the ly found the appellant to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute, and the corrected Khasra carried a presumption of correctness. It was submitted TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land a undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates Jamabandi for the year 1990 ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged possession. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for more than 20–25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued that the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in favour of the defendant shortly before the filing of the suit. Findings of This Court 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully examined the record of the courts below, 1993 (O&M) that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land a undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates Jamabandi for the year 1990–91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged ions of learned counsel for the respondent On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in efendant shortly before the filing of the suit. f This Court Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully examined the record of the courts below, -6- that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and had tried to take undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the lates 91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged ions of learned counsel for the respondent On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, reiterating the submissions earlier made before the said court. It was contended that the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued the lower appellate court had rightly relied upon the earlier, long-standing entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in efendant shortly before the filing of the suit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully examined the record of the courts below, this Court does not find any - nd had tried to take undue advantage of wrong entries earlier recorded in the revenue record. The appellant also argued that the lower appellate court misdirected itself in law in discarding the report of the revenue officer, failed to appreciate the latest 91 which stood in favour of the appellant, and ignored the significant circumstance that the plaintiffs had neither examined any Lambardar nor any independent witness from the village to prove their alleged On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued in support of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, It was contended that the plaintiffs had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land for 25 years, as reflected from the Jamabandis and earlier Khasra Girdawaris brought on record. The respondents submitted that the correction of Khasra Girdawari made by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit was manipulated, illegal and carried out at the back of the plaintiffs, and therefore could not divest them of their lawful and settled possession. They further argued standing entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, and had correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court which was based solely on stray revenue entries made in Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having not find any TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 ground to interfere with the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of th pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the plaintiffs’ long- Devi Vs. Suraj Bhan, RSA correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been ordered. It is settled after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and consistent entries, nor can such post rights between the parties. agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual possession based upon evidence on record. 19. In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, could not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987 when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent revenue authoritie defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier 1993 (O&M) ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of th pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the -standing claim of possession. This Court in the case of Devi Vs. Suraj Bhan, RSA-1294-1984, decided on 25.11.1991 correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been is settled proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and consistent entries, nor can such post-litem motam corrections create or extinguish rights between the parties. Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual possession based upon evidence on record. In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987 when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent revenue authorities. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier -7- reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries in favour of the appellant, made during the pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the This Court in the case of Smt. Kesar , decided on 25.11.1991 has held that correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and litem motam corrections create or extinguish Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections made in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89, particularly when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent s. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier - reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. The entire controversy revolves around the question of possession, and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the e appellant, made during the pendency of the civil suit, cannot be treated as a reliable foundation to defeat the Smt. Kesar has held that correction of khasra girdawari entries during the pendency of the civil suit cannot tilt the balance in favour of the person in whose favour the correction has been proposition of law that revenue entries brought into existence after the institution of a civil suit cannot be given precedence over earlier and litem motam corrections create or extinguish Such entries at best reflect the opinion of the revenue agency for fiscal purposes and cannot displace the judicial determination of actual In the present case, the learned lower appellate court has, with due appreciation of the evidence, held that the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1987 consistently recorded the plaintiffs/appellants as being in cultivating possession of the suit land. These entries, carrying a statutory presumption of truth, not be brushed aside merely on the basis of sudden and isolated corrections 89, particularly when the plaintiffs had already challenged the said correction before the competent s. The lower appellate court has further noticed that the defendants did not produce any Jamabandi showing their possession for the last 40 years, despite claiming so. On the contrary, the plaintiffs produced earlier TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 Jamabandis (Ex. P documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the lower appellate court. 20. More importantly, the findings regarding the correctness and genuineness of the earlier entries are pur appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, can evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self worthy of reliance, is fully justified. 21. This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990 was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and therefore could not outweigh the earlier, long depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record preceding the dispute. Conclusion 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned lower appellate court has return perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of 1993 (O&M) Jamabandis (Ex. P-1 to P-5) clearly reflecting their possession throughout. These documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the lower appellate court. More importantly, the findings regarding the correctness and genuineness of the earlier entries are pure findings of fact based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, can evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self worthy of reliance, is fully justified. This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990 was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and therefore could not outweigh the earlier, long-standing entries which consistently depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record preceding the dispute. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned lower appellate court has return perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of -8- lecting their possession throughout. These documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the More importantly, the findings regarding the correctness and e findings of fact based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a substantial error of law, the High Court, in second appeal, cannot re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries made during the pendency of the proceedings were tainted, self-serving and not This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate court failed to consider the later Jamabandi of 1990-91. The said Jamabandi itself was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and standing entries which consistently depicted the plaintiffs’ possession. The appellate court has assigned cogent reasons for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned lower appellate court has returned findings which are neither perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of - lecting their possession throughout. These documents, which are part of the regular revenue record, rightly weighed with the More importantly, the findings regarding the correctness and e findings of fact based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled that unless such findings are shown to be perverse, contrary to the record or suffering from a appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. No material has been pointed out to show that the lower appellate court ignored any admissible evidence or relied upon any inadmissible evidence. Its conclusion that the corrected entries serving and not This Court finds no merit in the contention that the lower appellate id Jamabandi itself was prepared after the disputed corrections in Girdawari had taken place and standing entries which consistently reasons for discarding the isolated later entries and placing reliance on the regular record In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered ed findings which are neither perverse nor illegal, and are based on a correct and balanced appreciation of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1259-1993 evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Regular Second Appeal. 23. Accordingly, the present Regular Second judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are upheld. 24. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. December 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 1993 (O&M) evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, the present Regular Second judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No. -9- evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. - evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993 are TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document