IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.308/2023 Date of Decision: 20.08.2025 Ram Kumar (deceased) through LRs and others .....Appellants. Versus Piarey Lal (deceased) through LRs and Others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Anita Muskan, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The Appellants, before this Court by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), have assailed the judgement and decree dated 23-08-2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 38-J/XIII/2021/2018, affirming the judgement and decree dated 18-12-2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Junior division), Jawali, District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 181/2007. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned trial Court and in the impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are in possession of the suit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 land as joint owners and that the defendants or their predecessor- in-interest, Fangan Ram, had no right, title, or interest therein. They further sought a declaration that the revenue entries in favour of the defendants' predecessor, showing him as a tenant on Galla Batai, were illegal, null, and void, having been incorporated without consent and not in accordance with law. The plaintiffs also challenged Mutation No. 110, attested on 11.06.1991, which conferred proprietary rights upon Fangan Ram, and Mutation No. 263, dated 27.09.1999, which showed the defendants as owners, alleging these were sanctioned without opportunity of hearing and were illegal. 3. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land with an alternate prayer for possession were also made. The plaintiffs pleaded to be owners in possession of the land, specifically Khata No. 52, Khatauni No. 136 min, Khasra Nos. 1128 & 1131, measuring 0-68-53 Hms in Mauza Harnota Khas, Tehsil Jawali District Kangra and denied any tenancy relationship, alleging the defendants' predecessor was never inducted as a tenant and that the entries were a result of connivance. The cause of action was stated to have arisen in July 2007 when threats were made and the plaintiffs discovered the allegedly wrong entries. 4. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections on maintainability, estoppel, and limitation, and pleaded 3 on merits that Fangan Ram was inducted as a tenant on Galla Batai prior to 1970, acquired ownership rights on the appointed day of 04.10.1975 by operation of law, and that the mutations were rightly sanctioned. They denied the plaintiffs' ownership and possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 10.09.2009: 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration, as claimed? OPP 2. Whether mutation No. 110 attested and sanctioned by A.C. 2nd Grade dated 11.06.1991 is wrong, illegal, null & void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether entries showing Fangan Ram son of Maru as tenant in the revenue record are illegal, wrong, null & void? OPP. 4. Whether mutation No. 263 dated 27.09.1999 attested in favour of the defendants showing them owners in possession of the suit land, is wrong, illegal, null & void? OPP. 5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the father of the defendants namely Fangan Ram had been inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation? OPD. 10. Relief. 4 5. The plaintiff Ram Lal testified as PW-1 and produced evidence, and the defendant Piarey Lal testified as DW-1 and produced evidence. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case and dismissed the suit. A first Appeal was thereafter filed by the present Appellants contending that The Ld. trial court had not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and has misled and mistook the same. The findings of the Ld. trial court on issues no.1 to 4, 8, 9 are illegal, against law and facts and are also wrong in the eyes of law. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment. 6. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 7. The presumption of truth invariably remains attached to the revenue record, which is prepared in accordance with law, and such a record cannot be discarded unless compellingly rebutted by convincing and cogent evidence. This presumption, particularly in relation to a jamabandi, persists unless specifically rebutted, a principle underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Partap Singh (Since Dead) Through Lrs. vs Shiv Ram (Since Dead) Through Lrs., AIR 2020 SC 1382, correctly relied upon by the First Appellate Court. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have failed to place on record any evidence that raises a legitimate suspicion or doubt regarding the procedure adopted in recording the revenue entries. The sole testimony of plaintiff Ram Lal as PW-1, who 5 tendered his affidavit Ext. PW-1/A merely reiterating the plaint's averments, is insufficient to discharge this heavy burden. His cross- examination revealed no substantive evidence to allude that the plaintiffs never inducted the defendants' father as a tenant; he could only deny the tenancy based on his minority prior to 1970, offering no positive proof to contradict the official records. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to rebut the presumption of correctness adhering to the revenue entries by leading strong evidence, which they have singularly failed to do. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karewwa Vs. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri, 2002 AIR 504 SC, a mere statement in the pleadings is not sufficient to rebut this presumption; evidence must be led, which the appellants have not done. 8. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not led any evidence to demonstrate that their possession over the suit land continues, whereas the defendants have substantiated their claim by producing a consistent chain of revenue records. The jamabandi for the year 1966-67, ExP-7, already records the suit land in the possession of the defendants' predecessor-in-interest. Subsequent jamabandis for the years 1971-72 (Ext. D-6), 1977-78 (Ext. D-5), and 1981-82 (Ext. D-4) consistently show the land in the possession of Fangan Ram, their predecessor, under the cultivation term 'Galla Batai' or 'Gala Batai chaharam'. This historical documentation significantly strengthens the defendants' case that the entries were made in 6 accordance with law and were not forged or surreptitiously recorded, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The testimony of DW-1 Piarey Lal, who explained that mutations were recorded by the State Government during his father's time, a fact of which he naturally cannot be expected to know the specific official lends further credence to the legitimacy of the process. His assertion that 18 to 20 other tenants of the plaintiffs also had mutations recorded in their names creates a plausible backdrop that the tenancy in question was not an isolated incident but part of a consistent pattern of the plaintiffs’ land management. 9. While it is true that tenancy is a bilateral agreement and the burden to prove its terms lies on the person asserting it, the defendants in this case have discharged this burden by producing this long-standing and uncontroverted revenue record, which probabilises the existence of such an agreement. The defendants have explained through the record how and when their predecessor was inducted as a tenant. The plaintiffs’ inactivity and silence for over sixteen years after the mutation of ownership was sanctioned in 1991, without offering a satisfactory explanation for this delay, further undermines their belated challenge to these entries. Consequently, the defendants were rightly conferred proprietary rights on the appointed day, i.e. 04.01.1975, under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the subsequent mutation in 1991 was validly sanctioned. The learned trial court, therefore, 7 justifiably concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case on all issues. No evidence was led to show the revenue entries were incorrect or that the plaintiffs were in possession. The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the first appellate court, are based on a correct appreciation of the evidence and law, warranting no interference in this second appeal. The suit was rightly dismissed. 10. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th August, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)