RSA-540-1998 IN THE HIGH Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs Raja Ram and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from Vide order dated 15.01.1999. Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri. decreed the suit and decree dated 22.12.1997 aside that decree and dismissed the suit of the p Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on Date of Decision : Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs versus am and Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from Vide order dated 15.01.1999. Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995, the the suit in favour of the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh. decree dated 22.12.1997 the learned Additional District Judge aside that decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-540-1998 (O&M) Reserved on:-22.09.2025 Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 ……Appellant ….. Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of parties Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist and decree dated 19.04.1995, the trial Court of the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh. Vide impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri laintiff. The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the ….. Respondents This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist ourt judgment set The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, as per jamabandi for the year 1982 defendants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land from the last 15 years as tenant Batai to the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants was also situated adjoining to the suit property have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, had been threate to cut the crops from the same 3. Upon notice, t the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment was declared surplus and allotted to them. by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas came to know about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. 5. From the pleadings of the 1. as tenant? (OPP) 2. 3. (O&M) plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83. Further with the prayer for restraining the ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land from the last 15 years as tenant Gair Marusi landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants was also situated adjoining to the suit property have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, had been threatening the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and to cut the crops from the same. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement and the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment was declared surplus and allotted to them. They further stated that Halqa Patwari by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas and the same fact was revealed about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed: Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant? (OPP) Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? (OPD) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi -2- plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger-cane and rice crops over the land measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, 83. Further with the prayer for restraining the ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the Gair Marusi and had been paying the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants and defendants, claiming that they have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, ning the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and filed their written statement and denied the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment/award showing that the land They further stated that Halqa Patwari by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total and the same fact was revealed when they about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. parties, following issues have been framed: Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? (OPD) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? (OPD) the land measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, 83. Further with the prayer for restraining the ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the and had been paying the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants and defendants, claiming that they have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, ning the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and denied showing that the land They further stated that Halqa Patwari by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total when they about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same. parties, following issues have been framed:- Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land (OPD) TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 4. A CPC? (OPD) 5. 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW PW-2. The plaintiff relied principally upon i) ii) 1988), iii) iv) Jamabandi v) 7. The defendants examined DW and placed on record revenue material showing that the land in dispute was decl to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates title/allotment and their possession. Findings of the trial Court 8. The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the oral evidence held that the entries in the Jama P1–P7 consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to suit. The plaintiff ha paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was (O&M) Whether defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35 A CPC? (OPD) Relief. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 2. The plaintiff relied principally upon following Ex. P1: Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982 Ex. P2: Khasra Girdawari for crops (c 1988), iii) Ex. P3: Copy of Jamabandifor the year 1987 iv) Ex. P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / Jamabandiup to 1992–93, Ex. P7: Copy of Khasra Girdawari dated 25.3.1994. The defendants examined DW-1 Rattan Singh and DW and placed on record Ex. D1, which is the allotment/award document and other revenue material showing that the land in dispute was decl to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates title/allotment and their possession. Findings of the trial Court The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the eld that the entries in the Jamabandi and the Khasra Girdawari consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to suit. The plaintiff had been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was -3- entitled to special costs under Section 35 The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and called Ajaib Singh as following revenue documents:- for the year 1982–83, P2: Khasra Girdawari for crops (covering rabi 1983 to rabi for the year 1987–88, P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / P7: Copy of Khasra Girdawari dated 25.3.1994. 1 Rattan Singh and DW-2 Om Prakash D1, which is the allotment/award document and other revenue material showing that the land in dispute was declared surplus and allotted to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the bandi and the Khasra Girdawari consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to d been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was entitled to special costs under Section 35- 1 and called Ajaib Singh as overing rabi 1983 to rabi P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / 2 Om Prakash D1, which is the allotment/award document and other ared surplus and allotted to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the bandi and the Khasra Girdawari Ex. consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to d been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or cutting/removing his crops except by due cours Findings of the lower appellate court 9. The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The lower appellate court relied which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to the defendants and allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions and on the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and accordingly the Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself in law in treating conclusive proof of dispossession and owne attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced by the plaintiff as Ex. document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. (O&M) decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or cutting/removing his crops except by due course of law. Findings of the lower appellate court The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The lower appellate court relied inter alia upon Ex. which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to and the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and trial court judgement and decree was set aside. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself in law in treating Ex. conclusive proof of dispossession and ownership so as to displace the presumption attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced as Ex.P1–P7 and erred in placing deci document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. -4- decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or e of law. The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The Ex.D1 and the state allotment entries which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and trial court judgement and decree was set aside. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge D1 and the allotment entries as rship so as to displace the presumption attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced P7 and erred in placing decisive reliance on the allotment document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The state allotment entries which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners in possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge D1 and the allotment entries as rship so as to displace the presumption attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced sive reliance on the allotment document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff produced best evidence in the fo Girdawari for the years 1982 documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to the suit. Learned c ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appella plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. Learned counsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error in considering additional material without hearing or without p orders on objections. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before t suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari and the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and t appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries stood rebutted. (O&M) Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff produced best evidence in the form of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari for the years 1982–83 through 1994 and that these documents are public documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to Learned counsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appella plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error in considering additional material without hearing or without p orders on objections. Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before t suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and t appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries stood rebutted. -5- Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s evidence of continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff rm of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra 83 through 1994 and that these documents are public documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only by cogent evidence of contrary fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to ounsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appellate court wrongly equated the plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error in considering additional material without hearing or without passing reasoned Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before the institution of the suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and that the lower appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction evidence of continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff rm of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra 83 through 1994 and that these documents are public documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was by cogent evidence of contrary fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to ounsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not te court wrongly equated the plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error assing reasoned Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that Ex. D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been he institution of the suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari hat the lower appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 Findings 13. I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the evidence-on-record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the submissions advanced by 14. It is well Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and supporting evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the plaintiff produced c a sequence of years from 1982 disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show cultivation entries in favour of the plaintif these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. So far as Ex. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour of the respondents. An allotment document is a rele existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this (O&M) I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel. It is well-settled that entries in revenue records and entries i Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the plaintiff produced contemporaneous revenue entries, namely a sequence of years from 1982–83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show cultivation entries in favour of the plaintiff. In a suit for protection of possession these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour of the respondents. An allotment document is a rele existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this -6- I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the counsel. settled that entries in revenue records and entries in the Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the ontemporaneous revenue entries, namely Ex.s P1–P7, covering 83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show f. In a suit for protection of possession these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour of the respondents. An allotment document is a relevant piece of evidence. Its existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of uninterrupted possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment-paper does not prove that the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the n the Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the P7, covering 83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show f. In a suit for protection of possession these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour vant piece of evidence. Its existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual uninterrupted paper does not prove that the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that the allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 point. On the appellant’s oral testi relied on certain lacunae in PW certain specific acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff produced an independent witness (PW entries. The fact that a witness necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in doing so, substituted its assessment for an overal oral evidence. 15. Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have produced Ex. D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the appellate court failed to explain how plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff remains unrebutted. 16. It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate (O&M) point. On the appellant’s oral testimony and contradictions, t relied on certain lacunae in PW-1’s testimony, including omission to mention ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff produced an independent witness (PW-2), revenue documents and contiguous entries. The fact that a witness may have forgotten precise dates does not necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in doing so, substituted its assessment for an overal Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the appellate court failed to explain how Ex. D1 cured the deficiencies it found in plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff remains unrebutted. It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff ereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate -7- mony and contradictions, the appellate court 1’s testimony, including omission to mention ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff 2), revenue documents and contiguous may have forgotten precise dates does not necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in doing so, substituted its assessment for an overall appraisal of documentary and Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive possession over the suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the Khasra Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the D1 cured the deficiencies it found in plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff ereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging that the defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate he appellate court 1’s testimony, including omission to mention ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff 2), revenue documents and contiguous may have forgotten precise dates does not necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in l appraisal of documentary and Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have possession over the suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is Khasra Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the D1 cured the deficiencies it found in plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff A CPC alleging that the defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the witness box the pl an inference adverse to his case. In omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut during the pendency of the pr the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the plaintiff in his testimony on that point by it revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the revenue record, remains unshaken. 17. The lower that the defendants were shown as “A that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even prior to allotment. That infere position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the statute or scheme to receive allotment itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and preference, not of factual possession. Actual p on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in ex plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession (O&M) court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the witness box the plaintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew an inference adverse to his case. In the considered omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut during the pendency of the proceedings, that act by itself would not establish that the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the plaintiff in his testimony on that point by itself discredit the consistent chain of revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the revenue record, remains unshaken. he lower appellate court has further referred to that the defendants were shown as “A-class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even prior to allotment. That inference, however, does not correctly reflect the legal position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the statute or scheme to receive allotment from the surplus pool, and it does not by itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and preference, not of factual possession. Actual possession still has to be established on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in ex plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession -8- court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the aintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew considered opinion of this Court, such omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut oceedings, that act by itself would not establish that the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the self discredit the consistent chain of revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the appellate court has further referred to Ex. D1 and observed class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even nce, however, does not correctly reflect the legal position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A-class tenant” under the surplus land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the from the surplus pool, and it does not by itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and ossession still has to be established on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in exclusion of the plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the aintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew , such omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut oceedings, that act by itself would not establish that the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the self discredit the consistent chain of revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the D1 and observed class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even nce, however, does not correctly reflect the legal class tenant” under the surplus land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the from the surplus pool, and it does not by itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and ossession still has to be established on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the clusion of the plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of “permissible tenants.” 18. Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the decision in Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) (1) Law Herald SC 356 may not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is misplaced. The a the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted in revenue records do and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. Conclusion 19. Having considered the record and the rival view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. 20. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 23, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of ermissible tenants.” Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) (1) Law Herald SC 356, where it was observed that a suit simplicite not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is misplaced. The authority relied upon is distinguishable because, on the record of the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted in revenue records does not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. Having considered the record and the rival view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -9- prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) observed that a suit simpliciter for injunction not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is distinguishable because, on the record of the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted es not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. Having considered the record and the rival submissions, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Speaking /No prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) r for injunction not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is distinguishable because, on the record of the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted es not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent submissions, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dated TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document