Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 79110 (PNJ)

PRITHI AND ORS v. SATYA NARAIN

RSA/2782/2011 · 2025-04-02

Nidhi Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Prithi & Others Satya Narain CORAM: Argued by:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-11704-CII of the appellants for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures A1 to A4, A6, forming part of trial Court and Appellate Court record. which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all exceptions and Annexures A CM-11705-CII of the appellants for IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronouncement & Others Vs. Satya Narain HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikram Singh Punia, Advocate Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate Ms. Yashasvi Rana, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CII-2011 This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures 6, A17 to A19 (wrongly written as P forming part of trial Court and Appellate Court record. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all exceptions and Annexures A1 to A4, A6, A17 to A CII-2011 This is an application under Section 151 of the appellants for permission to file additional documents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2782-2011 (O&M) Reserved on: 20.03.2025 ronouncement on: 02.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA SK Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocate Punia, Advocate Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate Ms. Yashasvi Rana, Advocate This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures (wrongly written as P1 to P4, P6, P17 to P19) forming part of trial Court and Appellate Court record. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just A4, A6, A17 to A19 are taken on record. This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf permission to file additional documents. 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and MAIN CASE concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts b 2. suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 170/164 5), 15(7-12), 16(4 and Killa No.72/14(8 estate of village Mohana, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The case as set ou the plaint was that Risala defendants - on 29.12.1998. amongst the plaintiff a his maintenance. As Risala was living with the plaintiff and as the plaintiff was maintaining and serving Risala, Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession pertaining to the suit property in fav year 1996; and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since the rabi crop of 1996 After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and additional documents i.e. A1 to A19 The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 170/164 Min rect. And Killa Nos. 145/6/2(1 12), 16(4-0), 17(8- 0), 18/ 1(7-0) and Khewat No.253/242 Min. rect. and Killa No.72/14(8-0) measuring 35 K-17M situated within the revenue estate of village Mohana, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The case as set ou was that Risala- father of the plaintiff as well as the three - was in cultivating possession of the suit on 29.12.1998. During his lifetime, he had divided his self amongst the plaintiff and the defendants. He had retained the suit land for his maintenance. As Risala was living with the plaintiff and as the plaintiff was maintaining and serving Risala, Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession pertaining to the suit property in fav year 1996; and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since the rabi crop of 1996 After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just i.e. A1 to A19 are taken on record. The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit Min rect. And Killa Nos. 145/6/2(1- 0) and Khewat No.253/242 Min. rect. 17M situated within the revenue estate of village Mohana, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The case as set out in father of the plaintiff as well as the three was in cultivating possession of the suit land. Risala had died During his lifetime, he had divided his self-acquired property nd the defendants. He had retained the suit land for his maintenance. As Risala was living with the plaintiff and as the plaintiff was maintaining and serving Risala, Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession pertaining to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1996; and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since the rabi crop of 1996-97, the plaintiff 32 The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a s interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit - 0) and Khewat No.253/242 Min. rect. 17M situated within the revenue t in father of the plaintiff as well as the three . Risala had died acquired property nd the defendants. He had retained the suit land for his maintenance. As Risala was living with the plaintiff and as the plaintiff was maintaining and serving Risala, Risala had relinquished his cultivating our of the plaintiff in the year 1996; and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It was the 97, the plaintiff SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document has been in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, of late the defendants had started claiming their rights over the suit land the plaintiff had requested them many times to admit his claim over the suit property, 16.7.1999. 3. written statement resisting the suit.Besides formal objections, the defendants had stated that cultivating position of the suit land was with all the defendants and not with the plaintiff alone. After the death of Risala on 29.12.1998, the parties were co-sharer in possession of the suit land. It was further stated in the writ statement that Risala had given parties to the suit. defendants as well as the plaintiff and he was happy with the service of the defendants and had therefore favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. It was accordingly averred that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to claim exclusive possession over the suit land. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit w 4. 5. were framed by the learned trial Court: been in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, of late the defendants had started claiming their rights over the suit land the plaintiff had requested them many times to admit his claim over the property, but they refused to do so. Hence, present suit Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit.Besides formal objections, the defendants had stated that Risala was co cultivating position of the suit land was with all the defendants and not with the plaintiff alone. After the death of Risala on 29.12.1998, the parties were in possession of the suit land. It was further stated in the writ statement that Risala had given 1/4th share out of his entire holding to the parties to the suit.It was contended that Risala was living with the defendants as well as the plaintiff and he was happy with the service of the defendants and had therefore relinquished his cultivating right in the land in favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. It was accordingly averred that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to claim exclusive possession over the suit land. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit w Replication was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants? OPP. Page 3 of 32 been in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, of late the defendants had started claiming their rights over the suit land even though the plaintiff had requested them many times to admit his claim over the Hence, present suit was filed on Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit.Besides formal objections, the was co-sharer of the suit land. The cultivating position of the suit land was with all the defendants and not with the plaintiff alone. After the death of Risala on 29.12.1998, the parties were in possession of the suit land. It was further stated in the written share out of his entire holding to the It was contended that Risala was living with the defendants as well as the plaintiff and he was happy with the service of the relinquished his cultivating right in the land in favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. It was accordingly averred that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to claim exclusive possession over the suit land. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants? OPP. 32 been in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, of late the even though the plaintiff had requested them many times to admit his claim over the was filed on Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit.Besides formal objections, the of the suit land. The cultivating position of the suit land was with all the defendants and not with the plaintiff alone. After the death of Risala on 29.12.1998, the parties were ten share out of his entire holding to the It was contended that Risala was living with the defendants as well as the plaintiff and he was happy with the service of the relinquished his cultivating right in the land in favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. It was accordingly averred that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to claim exclusive possession over On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land to the SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. by the parties, the learne of the plaintiff; vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 decreed, thereby restraining the defendants from cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by the defendants was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the defendants. 7. appellants/defendants made out to be false, land through different sources. has claimed that he had through Rapat Roznamcha possession over the suit land throug therefore, the plaintiff at different time contradictory versions regarding his possession over the suit land 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent Injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are in joint possession of the suit land as co-sharers? OPP. 4. Relief.” On the basis of oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff; and issue No.3 against the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 , thereby restraining the defendants from cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by the defendants was dismissed by the District judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the ld. trial Court. Hence, present second appeal Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants inter alia submits that made out to be false, as, he has claimed exclusive land through different sources. It is submitted has claimed that he had been granted possession over the suit land through Rapat Roznamcha of 1996; at another place, he has claimed possession over the suit land through a Will of Risala the plaintiff at different times, at different places, has given contradictory versions regarding his possession over the suit land Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent 3. Whether the defendants are in joint possession of the suit On the basis of oral & documentary evidence adduced d trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour issue No.3 against the defendants; and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010, the suit of the plaintiff was , thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The appeal filed the District Judge, Sonipat vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 thereby affirming the judgment ial Court. Hence, present second appeal by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the submits that the claim of the plaintiff is exclusive possession over the suit It is submitted that at one stage, plaintiff possession over the suit land ; at another place, he has claimed h a Will of Risala. It is submitted that , at different places, has given contradictory versions regarding his possession over the suit land; all of 32 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent 3. Whether the defendants are in joint possession of the suit SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which are in fact, untrue record. 8. intent of the plaintiff exclusion of the defendants, were first got illegally changed at the back of the defendants. Further, when the correction of Khasra plaintiff, the plaintiff with mala fide intent 16.07.1999. (Annexure A7), it is clear that no suggestion regarding filing of the application by Khasra Girdawari. 9. are categoric findings of the Revenue defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land as per their share. These twice, and after associating both the parties as well as respectables of the village. It is contended that notice of the learned Courts below, the same have been discarded on the spurious and flimsy ground that the said documents/revenue orders “came into existence after initiation of the present suit on 16. submitted that the said reasoning of the learned Courts below is untenable as the learned Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the are in fact, untrue, as borne out from the ample evidence on Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that the mala fide intent of the plaintiff in seeking possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants, is clear from the fact that the ere first got illegally changed at the back of the defendants. Further, defendants had filed application dated 11.05.1999 for correction of Khasra Girdawari in which notice was the plaintiff with mala fide intent Despite this, from cross-examination of the defendant (Annexure A7), it is clear that no suggestion regarding filing of the application by the defendant Girdawari. Learned Senior Counsel categoric findings of the Revenue Authorities defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land as per their These findings have been received after conducting spot inspection after associating both the parties as well as respectables of the It is contended that even though these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Courts below, the same have been discarded on the spurious and flimsy ground that the said documents/revenue orders came into existence after initiation of the present suit on 16. submitted that the said reasoning of the learned Courts below is untenable as the learned Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the as borne out from the ample evidence on Senior Counsel further submits that the mala fide possession of the suit land to the from the fact that the revenue entries ere first got illegally changed at the back of the defendants. Further, defendants had filed application dated 11.05.1999 for Girdawari in which notice was duly issued to the the plaintiff with mala fide intent had filed the present suit on examination of the defendant no.3 (Annexure A7), it is clear that no suggestion was put by the plaintiff the defendant for correction of Learned Senior Counsel further points out that there Authorities on record that the defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land as per their after conducting spot inspection after associating both the parties as well as respectables of the these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Courts below, the same have been discarded on the spurious and flimsy ground that the said documents/revenue orders came into existence after initiation of the present suit on 16.7.1999.” It is submitted that the said reasoning of the learned Courts below is untenable as the learned Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document application for correction of revenue entries was made by the defendants on 11.05.1999 which is prior to ini situation, there was no occasion for the Courts below to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 10. given to the 4 brothers. The plaintiff is basing his clai Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.P3/Annexure A10) the Act, no presumption of truth is attached to Rapat Roznamcha. This is especially so as even the concerned Patwari was not examined by the plaintiff to prove has claimed possession over the suit land. 11. own facts, and the law follows the facts. One additional or different fact may make a world of differenc in this regard can be placed on 2010 SC 93 para 40. allowed. 12. counters the arguments made on behalf of the defendant submitting that t accordingly substantial questions of law have been framed therein. But substantial questions of question of fact. And where inferences of fact are possible application for correction of revenue entries was made by the defendants on 11.05.1999 which is prior to initiation of the suit situation, there was no occasion for the Courts below to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned Senior Counsel argues that given to the 4 brothers. The plaintiff is basing his clai Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.P3/Annexure A10). However, as per Section 44 of , no presumption of truth is attached to Rapat Roznamcha. This is especially so as even the concerned Patwari was not examined by the plaintiff to prove the alleged roznamcha on the basis has claimed possession over the suit land. Ld. Senior Counsel also submits that each own facts, and the law follows the facts. One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion of 2 cases. Reliance in this regard can be placed on JT 2006(6) SC 2010 SC 93 para 40. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be Per Contra, the ld. counsel for the counters the arguments made on behalf of the defendant that this appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC and accordingly substantial questions of law have been framed therein. But substantial questions of law have to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact. And where, from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court application for correction of revenue entries was made by the defendants tiation of the suit on 16.07.1999. In this situation, there was no occasion for the Courts below to have decreed the Learned Senior Counsel argues that the ownership was given to the 4 brothers. The plaintiff is basing his claim on the alleged . However, as per Section 44 of , no presumption of truth is attached to Rapat Roznamcha. This is especially so as even the concerned Patwari was not examined by the on the basis of which the plaintiff Ld. Senior Counsel also submits that each case has its own facts, and the law follows the facts. One additional or different fact e between conclusion of 2 cases. Reliance JT 2006(6) SC 19, JT 2002 (1) SC, 482 AIR It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be counsel for the respondent/plaintiff counters the arguments made on behalf of the defendants by firstly his appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC and accordingly substantial questions of law have been framed therein. But to be distinguished from a substantial from a given set of circumstances two one drawn by the lower appellate court 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document will not be interfered by the contentions, in “Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh & Another” Civil Appeal No.1036 of 2002 decided on 03.03.2008, fact are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court will 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in # 5433, wherein it 14. for the plaintiff that Aakshi’s case the framing of of Punjab Courts Act still hold appeal has not been filed under section 41 but under 100 CPC. 15. Court in case of Law Finder Doc Id # 74883 will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. contentions, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court “Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh & Another” Civil Appeal No.1036 of 2002 decided on 03.03.2008, in which it has been held as under: “(7) Substantial question of law has to a substantial question of fact. (8) Where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal.” Learned counsel relies upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mohan Lal Vs. Nihal Singh” Law Finder Doc ID wherein it is held as under:- “11....There was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the finding of possessio by the Courts below within the limited parameters of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law the High Court rightly dismissed the same...” It is, however, simultaneously conceded by learned counsel for the plaintiff that now after the passing of the judgment in case the framing of questions of law is not required as section 41 of Punjab Courts Act still holds the field in th appeal has not been filed under section 41 but under 100 CPC. It is further submitted that Court in case of Gurnam Singh & Others Vs. Law Finder Doc Id # 74883that correction of Khasra ourt in second appeal. In support of his counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court “Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh & Another” Civil Appeal No.1036 of in which it has been held as under: - “(7) Substantial question of law has to be distinguished from (8) Where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal.” Learned counsel relies upon another judgment of the “Mohan Lal Vs. Nihal Singh” Law Finder Doc ID “11....There was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the finding of possession concurrently recorded by the Courts below within the limited parameters of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law the High Court rightly multaneously conceded by learned counsel now after the passing of the judgment in Pankaja of law is not required as section 41 the field in this Court, however the present appeal has not been filed under section 41 but under 100 CPC. further submitted that it has been held by this & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh Rosha, (P&H) : that correction of Khasra Girdawari entries 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document during pend relevant; and possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict about possession opportunity of examining their entire evidence. Further as per Singh Vs. Bikkar Singh truth attaches to Khasra Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue), (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 74258 was held that the findings of the civil court regarding the status of the contesting respondents being tenants or otherwise will override the findings of the revenue authorities in the Girdawaris. 16. in cross-examination of admitted qua the fact that their father used to reside with Sat Nar that in the year 1996 my father had transferred Girdawari of the disputed land in the name of Sat Narain. cannot be discarded without credible contradictory evidence. the present case no contrary evidence qua the transfer of Girdawari has been adduced by the defendants admission of DW1 has been well corroborated by the evidence led by the plaintiff that is Ex.P2 Khasra till 1996; from 1997 plaintiff during pendency of temporary injunction granted by civil court is not ; and civil court is to assess independently the evidence regarding possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict about possession should be given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence. Further as per Singh Vs. Bikkar Singh’ Law Finder Doc ID # 52967, truth attaches to Khasra Girdawari entries. Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue), (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 74258 was held that the findings of the civil court regarding the status of the contesting respondents being tenants or otherwise will override the findings of the revenue authorities which resulted in the change of entries in the Girdawaris. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also refers to the examination of defendant no.3 Ram Chander admitted qua the fact that their father used to reside with Sat Nar that in the year 1996 my father had transferred Girdawari of the disputed land in the name of Sat Narain. It is submitted that the cannot be discarded without credible contradictory evidence. the present case no contrary evidence qua the transfer of Girdawari has been adduced by the defendants-appellants. On the other hand, the oral admission of DW1 has been well corroborated by the evidence led by the plaintiff that is Ex.P2 Khasra Girdawari which shows possession of Risala from 1997 plaintiff Sat Narain has been shown in possession of temporary injunction granted by civil court is not to assess independently the evidence regarding possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict should be given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence. Further as per ‘Natha Law Finder Doc ID # 52967, no presumption of Girdawari entries. In Niranjan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue), (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 74258it was held that the findings of the civil court regarding the status of the contesting respondents being tenants or otherwise will override the which resulted in the change of entries for the plaintiff also refers to the statement Ram Chander DW1wherein he admitted qua the fact that their father used to reside with Sat Narain and that in the year 1996 my father had transferred Girdawari of the disputed It is submitted that the said admission cannot be discarded without credible contradictory evidence. However, in the present case no contrary evidence qua the transfer of Girdawari has appellants. On the other hand, the oral admission of DW1 has been well corroborated by the evidence led by the ri which shows possession of Risala Narain has been shown in possession; and 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Ex.P3 Roznamcha of Girdawari was changed in favour of plaintiff Sat Narain. 17. trial court decided the suit on the basis of issue No.1 to 3 the documentary evidence followed by findings in para 15 wherein the discussion has also taken place with regard to Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 (the ord of the revenue authorities the collector and the commissioner respectively) orders passed by the submitted that the same are arising out of revenue courts dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure A plaintiff Satya Narain remained absent at the time of carrying out spot inspection on 16.08.2004. 18. below have taken into consideration the evidence led by the plaintiff in a holistic manner. In doing so the Nakal dated 03.10.1996 change of Khasra father Risala. 19. the Ld. Trial Court have also been affirmed by the Ld. 1stAppellate Court evidence adduced by the plaintiff in order to establish his exclusive amcha of the year 1996-1997 vide which entry in Khasra Girdawari was changed in favour of plaintiff Sat Narain. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court decided the suit on the basis of issue No.1 to 3 the documentary evidence followed by findings in para 15 wherein the discussion has also taken place with regard to Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 (the ord of the revenue authorities i.e. the AC 2ndGrade, copy of inspection report, the collector and the commissioner respectively) orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and th submitted that the same are arising out of revenue courts. In fact, in the order of the learne dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure A-17) in para 5 Satya Narain remained absent at the time of carrying out spot on on 16.08.2004. It is further submitted that below have taken into consideration the evidence led by the plaintiff in a holistic manner. In doing so the Nakal Rapat dated 03.10.1996 (Annexure A-10) clearly established the factum of change of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the plaintiff Sat Narain by his father Risala. It is submitted that the findings of facts arrived the Ld. Trial Court have also been affirmed by the Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in order to establish his exclusive 1997 vide which entry in Khasra Girdawari was changed in favour of plaintiff Sat Narain. the plaintiff submits that the learned trial court decided the suit on the basis of issue No.1 to 3 on the basis of the documentary evidence followed by findings in para 15 wherein the discussion has also taken place with regard to Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 (the orders rade, copy of inspection report, the collector and the commissioner respectively). With regard to the ommissioner and this Court it is submitted that the same are arising out of the proceedings before the in the order of the learned Financial Commissioner para 5 it has been noticed that the Satya Narain remained absent at the time of carrying out spot It is further submitted that in fact both the courts below have taken into consideration the evidence led by the plaintiff in a Rapat Roznmacha Vakayati Ex.P3 clearly established the factum of Girdawari in favour of the plaintiff Sat Narain by his findings of facts arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court have also been affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. The also taken into consideration the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in order to establish his exclusive 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document possession. The made in Khasra before a civil court is not binding on the civil court. that admission of a party against its interest is of great significance. Therefore, the said admission cannot in any manner be termed as a statement. 20. Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad, (1974) 1 SCC 78 substantive evidence by themselves, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether he w he made a statement contrary to these admissions. The Court further said that admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained, and no acceptable ground to extricate the appellants fro effect of their own earlier statements has been made out. 21. submits that ensure equitable justice between the parties has to follow Learned Senior Counsel submits that no doubt, Khasra Girdawari entries when litigation is pending between the parties before a Civil Court, is not binding on the Civil Court. present case, it is not disputed possession. The ld. first appellate court has also held that made in Khasra girdawaris when litigation among the parties is pending before a civil court is not binding on the civil court. that admission of a party against its interest is of great significance. the said admission cannot in any manner be termed as a In this regard reliance has been Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad, (1974) 1 SCC 78 wherein it is held that substantive evidence by themselves, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether he was confronted with these statements in case he made a statement contrary to these admissions. The Court further said that admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained, and no acceptable ground to extricate the appellants fro effect of their own earlier statements has been made out. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the facts of each case are different. The law in order to ensure equitable justice between the parties has to follow Learned Senior Counsel submits that no doubt, Girdawari entries when litigation is pending between the parties before a Civil Court, is not binding on the Civil Court. present case, it is not disputed that the application of the defendants was first appellate court has also held that any change gation among the parties is pending before a civil court is not binding on the civil court. It has also rightly held that admission of a party against its interest is of great significance. the said admission cannot in any manner be termed as a stray has been placed upon a 3-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswanath Prasad Vs. wherein it is held that admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness- as confronted with these statements in case he made a statement contrary to these admissions. The Court further said that admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained, and no acceptable ground to extricate the appellants from the effect of their own earlier statements has been made out. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants the facts of each case are different. The law in order to ensure equitable justice between the parties has to follow the facts. Learned Senior Counsel submits that no doubt, any change made in Girdawari entries when litigation is pending between the parties before a Civil Court, is not binding on the Civil Court. However, in the that the application of the defendants was 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document prior in time to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. Moreover, the revenue entries were changed over in the revenue proceedings inspected. Even further, the Rapat Roznamcha is not proved on file. While issuing Rapat Roznamcha, notice was not issued to Risala. Even concerned Patwari was not examined to prove the Rapat Roznamcha. It is contended that from the above fac committed by the plaintiff; and that in the above factual scenario, findings of both the Courts below are perverse. It is further argued that in deciding the rights of the parties, the learned Courts below could n the judgment of t 22. the respondent counsel that section 100 CPC is applicable and there is no substantial question of law in the present RSA is also devoid section 100 of CPC is not applicable in Punjab and Haryana in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Pankajakshi (Dead) v. Chandrika (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 745778 23. delivered by Trial Court and First Appellate Court are because the perspective and ignored the law 10.02.2009 passed by this Court question of law prior in time to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. Moreover, the revenue entries were changed only after duly carrying out spot inspection twice in the revenue proceedings. In the civil proceedings, th inspected. Even further, the Rapat Roznamcha is not proved on file. While issuing Rapat Roznamcha, notice was not issued to Risala. Even concerned Patwari was not examined to prove the Rapat Roznamcha. It is contended that from the above facts, it can be inferred that fraud has been committed by the plaintiff; and that in the above factual scenario, findings of both the Courts below are perverse. It is further argued that in deciding the rights of the parties, the learned Courts below could n the judgment of this Court (Annexure A18). Ld. Senior counsel submits that the respondent counsel that section 100 CPC is applicable and there is no substantial question of law in the present RSA is also devoid section 100 of CPC is not applicable in Punjab and Haryana in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Pankajakshi (Dead) v. Chandrika (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder # 745778. It is further submitted that both delivered by Trial Court and First Appellate Court are the Courts below have not appreciated evidence in right perspective and ignored the law, and revenue passed by this Court. It is submitted that ‘ question of law’ as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in prior in time to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. Moreover, the revenue after duly carrying out spot inspection twice In the civil proceedings, the land was not inspected. Even further, the Rapat Roznamcha is not proved on file. While issuing Rapat Roznamcha, notice was not issued to Risala. Even concerned Patwari was not examined to prove the Rapat Roznamcha. It is contended ts, it can be inferred that fraud has been committed by the plaintiff; and that in the above factual scenario, findings of both the Courts below are perverse. It is further argued that in deciding the rights of the parties, the learned Courts below could not have ignored Ld. Senior counsel submits that the argument raised by the respondent counsel that section 100 CPC is applicable and there is no substantial question of law in the present RSA is also devoid of merit as section 100 of CPC is not applicable in Punjab and Haryana in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) v. Chandrika (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder submitted that both the judgments delivered by Trial Court and First Appellate Court are perverse and illegal Courts below have not appreciated evidence in right revenue orders, as also order dated It is submitted that ‘Perversity itself is a ’ as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Illoth Valappil 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Ambunhi v. Kunhambu is accordingly 24. 25. perused the case file in great detail. 26. rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. case file and the lower court record in fine detail with the very able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. submissions reasons recorded hereinbelow. 27. parties, was personally owned by which Risala was cultivating measuring 35 kanal 17 marla respect of the land personally owned by Risala, admittedly a consent decree dated 11.06.1986 wa the said land in favour of his 4 sons (1 plaintiff + 3 defendants) equally. Whereas the possessory rights 28. different pleas taken by the parties relevant Lower Court Record Ambunhi v. Kunhambu Karanavan (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I have given my very thoughtful consideration to the val submissions made on behalf of the parties. case file and the lower court record in fine detail with the very able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. submissions advanced on behalf of the re reasons recorded hereinbelow. A few admitted facts are that having two kinds of agricultural personally owned by Risala; and the suit land viz the which Risala was cultivating as a co-sharer in Shamlat measuring 35 kanal 17 marla over which Risala had possessory rights. respect of the land personally owned by Risala, admittedly a consent decree dated 11.06.1986 was passed as per which Risala had transferred the said land in favour of his 4 sons (1 plaintiff + 3 defendants) equally. the suit land measuring 35 kanal 17 marla over which Risala had possessory rights, had been retained by Risala for his maintena To appreciate the exact factual position and the different pleas taken by the parties, it will be useful to consider the Lower Court Record which has been Karanavan (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1604296. It prayed that the present appeal be allowed. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and thoughtful consideration to the val submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the case file and the lower court record in fine detail with the very able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find no merit in the on behalf of the respondent-Plaintiff for the A few admitted facts are that Risala/father of the lands i.e. the agricultural land suit land viz the agricultural land rer in Shamlat Thola Parmanand over which Risala had possessory rights. In respect of the land personally owned by Risala, admittedly a consent s passed as per which Risala had transferred the said land in favour of his 4 sons (1 plaintiff + 3 defendants) equally. measuring 35 kanal 17 marla over which Risala had had been retained by Risala for his maintenance. exact factual position and the , it will be useful to consider the has been brought on record by the 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellants/defendants by way of CM the said documents/record has not been questioned by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. shows that in Para 5 29. response thereto (Annexure A2) father of the parties used to be the owner as a co 30. (Annexure A3) wherein he stated in Para 2 as appellants/defendants by way of CM-11705 the said documents/record has not been questioned by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. A perusal of the plaint in Para 5, the plaintiff had pleaded as “5. That the plaintiff has many times requested the defendants that the cultivating right over the suit land was relinquished by their father ShriRisala in his favour and he has still right to cultivate the same but the defendants are adamant. The defendants have finally threatened the plaintiff on 7.7.1999 that they would certainly dispossess him from the suit land by force. Hence this suit.” In the written statement thereto (Annexure A2), the defendants “1. That para No.1 of the plaint is wrong in the present form and is therefore, denied. It is however, admitted that the father of the parties used to be the owner as a co the land mentioned in this paragraph. possession was with all the defendants as shri Risala was very old man of 80 years and was not capable of doing any work whatsoever. He was also not in a physical capacity to even supervise the work of cultivation. The same was done by the parties to the suit and shri Satya Narain never in cultivating possession of the suit land. died on 29.12.1998 and since his death the parties are co sharer in possession of the suit land. entries to the contrary, the same are wrong and not in any way binding on the rights of the answering defendants. The plaintiff had filed replication (Annexure A3) wherein he stated in Para 2 as 11705-CII-2011. The authenticity of the said documents/record has not been questioned by the learned perusal of the plaint (Annexure A1) , the plaintiff had pleaded as under: - “5. That the plaintiff has many times requested the defendants that the cultivating right over the suit land was Risala in his favour and he has still right to cultivate the same but the defendants are ts have finally threatened the plaintiff on 7.7.1999 that they would certainly dispossess him from the suit land by force. Hence this suit.” the written statement dated 10.8.1999, filed in the defendants had stated as follows: - That para No.1 of the plaint is wrong in the present form and is therefore, denied. It is however, admitted that the father of the parties used to be the owner as a co-sharer of the land mentioned in this paragraph. The cultivating possession was with all the defendants as shri Risala was very old man of 80 years and was not capable of doing any work He was also not in a physical capacity to even supervise the work of cultivation. The same was done by the suit and shri Satya Narain Plaintiff alone was never in cultivating possession of the suit land. Shri Risala has died on 29.12.1998 and since his death the parties are co- sharer in possession of the suit land. If, there are revenue the same are wrong and not in any way binding on the rights of the answering defendants.” The plaintiff had filed replication dated 18.7.2002 (Annexure A3) wherein he stated in Para 2 as follows: - 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 31. examination in chief in Para 2 he had 32. (Annexure A5), the plaintiff ha four brothers. filed in the court of SDM, I did not receive any summons in “1. That para 1 of the written statement as stated is incorrect and denied and the said para of the plaint is reiterated. incorrect that Risala was physically so weak that he could not even supervise the work. He was actually cultivating the suit land. The defendant never cultivated the same. The entries in the revenue record are correct. 2. That para 2 of the written statement as stated is incorrect and denied. Para 2 of the plaint is reiterated. Sh. Risala did not own the suit land. He was only cultivating the sam co-share of the Thola Parmanand. The land of the said Thola was never partitioned.” Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed his affidavit examination in chief dated 11.9.2006 (Ex. PW had stated as follows: - “2. That Shamlat Thola Permanand was the owner of the disputed land and my father was cultivating his share in the above land and he actually used to cultivate his share in the above said land through me.” However, in his cross-examination (Annexure A5), the plaintiff has stated as follows: “Re-called for cross examination. XXX by Shri K.D. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Disputed land is part of ShamlatThola. Earlier the Girdawari was in the name of my father in respect of the land of ShamlatThola, who was living with me. I do not remember as to when my father had died. One case was also pending in the court of the Commissioner in respect of this land. four brothers. My father had left a Will in respect of the disputed land, which is filed in this case. filed in the court of SDM, I did not receive any summons in of the written statement as stated is incorrect and denied and the said para of the plaint is reiterated. It is incorrect that Risala was physically so weak that he could not even supervise the work. He was actually cultivating the suit t never cultivated the same. The entries in 2. That para 2 of the written statement as stated is incorrect and denied. Para 2 of the plaint is reiterated. Sh. Risala did not own the suit land. He was only cultivating the same as a rmanand. The land of the said Thola Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed his affidavit in Ex. PW-1/A- Annexure A-4) in which Permanand was the owner of the disputed land and my father was cultivating his share in the he actually used to cultivate his share in the examination dated 22.9.2006 follows: - called for cross examination. XXX by Shri K.D. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Disputed land is part of ShamlatThola. Earlier the Girdawari was in the name of my father in respect of the land of ShamlatThola, who was living with me. I do not remember as One case was also pending in ioner in respect of this land. We are My father had left a Will in respect of the disputed land, which is filed in this case. When a case was filed in the court of SDM, I did not receive any summons in 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33. different time versions regarding his possession over the suit land was the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was relinquished in his favour by Risala 18.7.2002 (Annexure A3) cultivating the suit land; examination in chief (Ex. PW that Risala was cultivating the suit land through the plaintiff; and cross-examination totally different stand and left a Will in respect of the the said Will was neither produced nor proved plaintiff merely respect of the same. I do not know if a carried out in KhasraGirdawari of this land. any such case was pending before Tehsildar. I do not know whether Tehsildar had visited the disputed land on 18.10.1999, however I had not gone there on the said date. had filed an appeal against the order dated: 18.10.1999, however the same was not allowed visited the site of the disputed land on 16.8.2004, but I was not present at the site. The villages had informed me that Tehsildarhad visited the site. ……” (Emphas From the above pleadings different times, at different places, has given versions regarding his possession over the suit land the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was relinquished in his Risala by way of Rapat Roznamcha (Annexure A3), the plaintiff had stated that Risala was cultivating the suit land; c) in the affidavit examination in chief (Ex. PW-1/A/ Annexure A that Risala was cultivating the suit land through the plaintiff; and examination on 22.9.2006 (Annexure A5 totally different stand and categorically deposed left a Will in respect of the Suit land. (It is pertinent to mention here that the said Will was neither produced nor proved merely gave a bald statement regarding not know if any correction has been carried out in KhasraGirdawari of this land. I do not know if any such case was pending before Tehsildar. I do not know whether Tehsildar had visited the disputed land on 18.10.1999, however I had not gone there on the said date. I had filed an appeal against the order dated: 18.10.1999, however the same was not allowed.The Tehsildar again visited the site of the disputed land on 16.8.2004, but I was not present at the site. The villages had informed me that ……” (Emphases added above by me) pleadings it is clear that the plaintiff at , at different places, has given varying and contradictory versions regarding his possession over the suit land i.e. a) In the plaint, it the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was relinquished in his by way of Rapat Roznamcha; b)in the replication dated had stated that Risala was affidavit dated 11.9.2006 in his Annexure A4) the plaintiff has stated that Risala was cultivating the suit land through the plaintiff; and d) in his (Annexure A5), the plaintiff has taken a categorically deposed/ stated that Risala had is pertinent to mention here that the said Will was neither produced nor proved by the plaintiff. The gave a bald statement regarding a Will which has not seen 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the light of the day. contradictory stands of the plaintiff, plaintiff, is writ large. Th in the plaint that the plaintiff himself is unsure as to how he came in exclusive possession of the suit land. 34. the defendants that they have been in of the Suit land affidavit (Annexure A6 brothersare cultivating the land of their respective 1/4 above said land and are in cultivatory possession of the same, and till today, we all the four brothers are in possession of their respective shares in the above land and are cultivating the same. There is no question of the exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the above said land.” 35. Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession in the suit of the plaintiff in 1996 whereafter plaintiff was put into culti possession of the suit land. In Roznamcha for the year 1996 However, this plea foremost, it is settled As per Section 44 of the truth is attached to R the light of the day.) It is my view that from the above facts and contradictory stands of the plaintiff, the falsity of th is writ large. These statements falsif his case is based on Rapat Roznamcha that the plaintiff himself is unsure as to how he came in exclusive of the suit land. On the other hand, it has been the consistent case of the defendants that they have been in continuous land as per their respective share affidavit (Annexure A6/ Ex. DW1/A)clearly stated that “ are cultivating the land of their respective 1/4 above said land and are in cultivatory possession of the same, and till today, we all the four brothers are in possession of their respective shares in the above land and are cultivating the same. There is no question of the ssession of the plaintiff on the above said land.” In the suit it is the pleaded Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession in the suit of the plaintiff in 1996 whereafter plaintiff was put into culti possession of the suit land. In support, plaintiff has Roznamcha for the year 1996-97 dated 03.10.1996 (Annexure A10/ Ex.P3). is plea of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected foremost, it is settled law that Rapat Roznamcha per Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue truth is attached to Rapat Roznamcha/ Khasra It is my view that from the above facts and falsity of the case put up by the falsify the case of the Plaintiff as, his case is based on Rapat Roznamcha only. It would appear that the plaintiff himself is unsure as to how he came in exclusive On the other hand, it has been the consistent case of continuous cultivating possession share. The defendants, in their clearly stated that “all the four are cultivating the land of their respective 1/4th Share each in the above said land and are in cultivatory possession of the same, and till today, we all the four brothers are in possession of their respective shares in the above land and are cultivating the same. There is no question of the ssession of the plaintiff on the above said land.” pleaded case of the plaintiff that Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession in the suit land in favour of the plaintiff in 1996 whereafter plaintiff was put into cultivating , plaintiff has produced copy of 97 dated 03.10.1996 (Annexure A10/ Ex.P3). is liable to be rejected as first and Roznamcha is per-se not admissible. Punjab Land Revenue Act, no presumption of apat Roznamcha/ Khasra Girdawari.Plaintiff was not 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document relying upon the which is per se inadmissible. & Others” Law finder Doc ID # 468738, that: – from shamlatdeh or to establish their title to the land in relying upon the Jamabandi but was relying only on khasra per se inadmissible. In “Mani Ram & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others” Law finder Doc ID # 468738, a Division Bench of this Court held “6. To claim ownership of shamlatdeh by virtue of Section 2 (g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, the petition cultivating possession of land prior to 26.1.1950; (ii) land in dispute being assessed to land revenue; and (ili)land in possession of petitioners not in excess of their share in such shamlatdeh. The petitioners have failed to adduce evidence much less tangible, cogent and convincing to establish their cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, through their predecessors prior to 26.1.1950. have placed on record copy of khasragirdawari for the period October 1946 to March 1950. No presumption of truth is attached to entries in khasragirdawari. khasragirdawari, the land has been described as shamlatdeh and in the column of possession as 'possession of right holders' and the nature of land is banjar is uncultivated land that has remained fallow for eight or more harvests. The document produced belies their contention that they are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute through their predecessors prior to 26.1.1950. The petitioners have miserably failed to produce any evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act in order to seek exclusion of land in dispute from shamlatdeh or to establish their title to the land in dispute.” was relying only on khasra girdawari; “Mani Ram & Others Vs. State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court held To claim ownership of shamlatdeh by virtue of Section 2 (g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, the petitioners have to prove (i) cultivating possession of land prior to 26.1.1950; (ii) land in dispute being assessed to land revenue; and (ili)land in possession of petitioners not in excess of their share in such shamlatdeh. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence much less tangible, cogent and convincing to establish their cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, through their predecessors prior to 26.1.1950. The petitioners have placed on record copy of khasragirdawari for the period 46 to March 1950. No presumption of truth is attached to entries in khasragirdawari. In the khasragirdawari, the land has been described as shamlatdeh and in the column of possession as 'possession of right holders' and the nature of land is banjarqadim. Banjar Qadim is uncultivated land that has remained fallow for eight or more harvests. The document produced by the petitioners belies their contention that they are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute through their predecessors prior to 1950. The petitioners have miserably failed to produce any evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act in order to seek exclusion of land in dispute from shamlatdeh or to establish their title to the land in 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36. before the learned Courts below in accordance with law concerned Patwari the scribe the Lambardar that Risala appeared before to Risala has material evidence has been withhel unproven as required under law Division Bench judgment of the Bombay Yusuf and another v. D and another 303138 wherein it is held that evidence of the document is he before the Court. Singh v. Sandhura Singh 37. evidence to prove their possession over the suit land position on spot the Assistant Collector Grade of which the I defendants as Mark (Mark ‘A’), it is recorded that the Assistant Collector, 2 and witnesses. Moreover, the said Rapat Roznamcha was never proven before the learned Courts below in accordance with law concerned Patwari/ Scribe was never examined can prove the contents of Lambardar of the village was not associated to identify appeared before the Patwari. Even the also not been produced and/or material evidence has been withheld, and the as required under law. In this regard reference may be made to Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Yusuf and another v. D and another’ (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # wherein it is held that evidence of the document is hearsay evidence unless the writer thereof is examined before the Court. A similar view has been taken by Singh v. Sandhura Singh’ (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 442693 In contrast, the defendants had produced voluminous evidence to prove their possession over the suit land position on spot. The site inspection of the suit land was carried out by Assistant Collector Grade-II for the first time of which the Inspection Report has been filed and proved by the defendants as Mark ‘A’ (Annexure A-12). ), it is recorded that the spot inspection Assistant Collector, 2nd Class, Sonepat, in the presence of both the parties and witnesses. Mark ‘A’ shows that in the on the said Rapat Roznamcha was never proven before the learned Courts below in accordance with law. Admittedly the was never examined by the plaintiff; and only contents of the document. Even of the village was not associated to identify Risala to prove Even the alleged notice given /or proved by the plaintiff. Thus, , and the Rapat Roznamcha remained . In this regard reference may be made to High Court in ‘Sir Mohammed (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # wherein it is held that evidence of the contents contained in the unless the writer thereof is examined A similar view has been taken by this Court in ‘Richhpal H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 442693. , the defendants had produced voluminous evidence to prove their possession over the suit land based on the factual The site inspection of the suit land was carried out by for the first time on 20.08.1999 in respect eport has been filed and proved by the 12). Vide report dated 20.8.1999 spot inspection was conducted by the in the presence of both the parties the on-site inspection of the suit 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document land, the Assistant Grade possession of the suit land on their respective shares. the spot including confirmed that the crop of rice and Jowar on the suit land belonged to both the parties. 38. suit land on 16.08.20 defendants were found to be in possession of the suit land. the two spot inspections, that 26.08.2004 (Annexure A13) made Girdawari duly recording therein that the cultivating on the suit land on their equal shares. 39. preferred appeal before order dated 13.09.2005 inspection report dated 16.08.2004 is a detailed report and it is beyond any shadow of doubt. land, the Assistant Grade-II found that the defendants are also in possession of the suit land on their respective shares. the spot including respectables of the village confirmed that the crop of rice and Jowar on the suit land belonged to both the parties. Thereafter, a second inspection was carried out of the suit land on 16.08.2004 (Annexure A14/ Ex. D defendants were found to be in possession of the suit land. two spot inspections, that the Assistant Collector vide order dated 26.08.2004 (Annexure A13) made necessary duly recording therein that the cultivating on the suit land on their equal shares. Against thisorder of the Assistant Collector preferred appeal before the Collector Sonipat which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2005 (Annexure A15/ Ex. D inspection report dated 16.08.2004 is a detailed report and it is beyond ow of doubt. Relevant part of the said order is as “4. I have perused the record and have also heard the arguments of the ld. Counsels for the parties and I have reached to the conclusion that argument of the appellant that the lower court has forged and fabricated the inspection report. dated 16.08.2004 contains the full details and the site was inspected in the presence of Ram Kishan chowkidar, Ram Chander, Balwan, Dharmi, Fateh, Umed, Raj Kumar, Mansa, Lakhi etc. and the possession was II found that the defendants are also in possession of the suit land on their respective shares.Witnesses present at of the village such as Lambardar also confirmed that the crop of rice and Jowar on the suit land belonged to second inspection was carried out of the / Ex. D-2) as per which also the defendants were found to be in possession of the suit land. It is only after the Assistant Collector vide order dated necessary correction in the Khasra duly recording therein that the Plaintiff and defendants are cultivating on the suit land on their equal shares. the Assistant Collector,the Plaintiff Collector Sonipat which was dismissed vide / Ex. D-3), holding that the inspection report dated 16.08.2004 is a detailed report and it is beyond Relevant part of the said order is as follows: - I have perused the record and have also heard the arguments of the ld. Counsels for the parties and I have reached to the conclusion that there is no force in the that the lower court has forged and fabricated the inspection report. The inspection report dated 16.08.2004 contains the full details and the site was n the presence of Ram Kishan Numberdar, Lehri chowkidar, Ram Chander, Balwan, Dharmi, Fateh, Balwan, Umed, Raj Kumar, Mansa, Lakhi etc. and the possession was 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document force and merit in the rulings and contentions of the counsels for the appellant and accordingly, I dismissed this appeal 40. A15/ Ex. D-3), the plaintiff filed Revision Commissioner 27.06.2007 (Annexure A16 twice and there was no other better evidence before AC Grade recording Girdawari as per ground realities. dated 27.6.2007, for recording Girdawari as per ground verified at the site and the statements of all these persons have also recorded at the site and the inspection report has been written in the record in full details. Inspection report contains the details of the crops in each Killa Number and it also contains the details of the possession of each party on the land in dispute. Therefore, there is no truth in the allegation of the appellant that the inspection report is forged document and that the lower court has also given details of the inspection report in the order dated 26.08.2004. force and merit in the rulings and contentions of the counsels for the appellant and accordingly, I dismissed this appeal Against the above order dated 13.09.2005 (Annexure ), the plaintiff filed Revision Petition no.54 of 2005 Commissioner, Rohtak which was also 27.06.2007 (Annexure A16/ Ex. D-4) by holding that the site was twice and there was no other better evidence before AC Grade recording Girdawari as per ground realities. dated 27.6.2007, is as follows: - “4....I do not find any irregularity in the impugned orders of the lower courts. When the site has been inspected twice after informing both the parties and during both the occasions, cultivation of respondents has been confirmed, there was no other better evidence before the A.C. 2nd Grade for recording Girdawari as per ground counsel for the petitioner has taken stand that spot inspection can not be substituted for other evidence but inspite of providing ample opportunity to the petitioner, he has failed to verified at the site and the statements of all these persons have also recorded at the site and the inspection report has been written in the record in full details. Inspection report ns the details of the crops in each Killa Number and it also contains the details of the possession of each party on Therefore, there is no truth in the allegation of the appellant that the inspection report is forged the lower court has also given details of the inspection report in the order dated 26.08.2004.I find no force and merit in the rulings and contentions of the counsels for the appellant and accordingly, I dismissed this appeal…” (Emphasis added) order dated 13.09.2005 (Annexure Petition no.54 of 2005 before the which was also rejected vide order dated by holding that the site was inspected twice and there was no other better evidence before AC Grade-II for recording Girdawari as per ground realities.Relevant extract of order “4....I do not find any irregularity in the impugned orders of ourts. When the site has been inspected twice after informing both the parties and during both the occasions, cultivation of respondents has been confirmed, there was no other better evidence before the A.C. 2nd Grade for recording Girdawari as per ground realities. Though counsel for the petitioner has taken stand that spot inspection can not be substituted for other evidence but inspite of providing ample opportunity to the petitioner, he has failed to 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41. plaintiff filed of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Financial Commissioner irregularity in the orders of the Lower Revenue Courts, and dismissed the A17) as follows: produce any other evidence. On these grounds, I do no any force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.”. Against the order of Commissioner dated 27.06.2007, plaintiff filed a Second Revision/ROR no. 739 of 2006 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Financial Commissioner. irregularity in the orders of the Lower Revenue Courts, and the ROR of the Plaintiff vide order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure as follows:- “5. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that AC IInd Grade Sonipat carried out the spot inspection on dated: 16.8.2004 in the presence of Patwarihalqua, Chowkidar, Lambardar and other respectable persons of the village as per the remand order of Collector Sonipat though the petitioner remained absent. AC IInd Grade Sonipat also prepared a spot inspection report whereby the cult possession of the respondents has been confirmed. Parties to the suit are real brothers who became co dispute after the death of their father. It is a settled law that the possession of one co-sharer is considered to be the possession of all the co-sharers. I am in agreement with the counsel for the respondents that the change of KhasraGirdawari entries can be made after spot inspection keeping in view the actual possession of the parties on the basis of evidence brought on rec required to go into the complicated question of law On these grounds, I do not find any force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.”. (Emphasis added) Against the order of Commissioner dated 27.06.2007, ROR no. 739 of 2006-07under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Financial Commissioner. The FC did not find any irregularity in the orders of the Lower Revenue Courts, and thus, order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure I have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that AC IInd Grade Sonipat carried out the spot inspection on e presence of Patwarihalqua, Chowkidar, Lambardar and other respectable persons of the village as per the remand order of Collector Sonipat though the petitioner remained absent. AC IInd Grade Sonipat also prepared a spot inspection report whereby the cultivating possession of the respondents has been confirmed. Parties to the suit are real brothers who became co-sharer in the land in dispute after the death of their father. It is a settled law that sharer is considered to be the sharers. I am in agreement with the counsel for the respondents that the change of KhasraGirdawari entries can be made after spot inspection keeping in view the actual possession of the parties on the basis of evidence brought on record and revenue officer is not required to go into the complicated question of law regarding 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42. Writ Petition No.206 of 2009 dated 26.8.2004, 13.9.2005, 27.6.2007, and 29.9.2008. The said C the plaintiff was dismissed by this Court (Annexure A18) holding as follows: 43. that the revenue proceedings were conducted in the absence of the title of land. In the instant case the evidence of the parties was recorded at the initial stage and only spot inspection was required as per directions given in t Collector Sonipat. Therefore, there are no irregularities in the order of the lower revenue courts. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.” The plaintiff then approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.206 of 2009 praying for washing of the impugned orders dated 26.8.2004, 13.9.2005, 27.6.2007, and 29.9.2008. The said C the plaintiff was dismissed by this Court (Annexure A18) holding as follows:- “The Financial Commissioner, while de the order, has clearly observed that A.C. IInd Grade, Sonepat carried out spot inspection on 16.08.2004 PatwariHalqa, Chowkidar, Lambardar and other respectable persons of the village as per the remand order pass Collector, Sonepat. It is also recorded that the petitioner remained absent. Obviously, it would mean that the petitioner was served a notice. The grievance is that he was never served a notice and the spot inspection has been carried out at his back. The petitioner is in contest with his real brother. They both have inherited this property on the death of their father. Khasragirdawari entries have been recorded on the basis of spot inspection. hardly any scope for interference in petition is accordingly dismissed.” It may first be clarified that it is incorrect to suggest that the revenue proceedings were conducted in the absence of the title of land. In the instant case the evidence of the parties was recorded at the initial stage and only spot inspection was required as per directions given in the remand order of Collector Sonipat. Therefore, there are no irregularities in the order of the lower revenue courts. The revision petition is approached this Court by way of Civil praying for washing of the impugned orders dated 26.8.2004, 13.9.2005, 27.6.2007, and 29.9.2008. The said CWP of vide order dated 10.02.2009 “The Financial Commissioner, while declining to interfere in the order, has clearly observed that A.C. IInd Grade, Sonepat carried out spot inspection on 16.08.2004 in the presences of a, Chowkidar, Lambardar and other respectable persons of the village as per the remand order passed by the Collector, Sonepat. It is also recorded that the petitioner remained absent. Obviously, it would mean that the petitioner was served a notice. The grievance is that he was never served a notice and the spot inspection has been back. The petitioner is in contest with his real brother. They both have inherited this property on the death of their father. Khasragirdawari entries have been recorded on the basis of spot inspection.There would be hardly any scope for interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed.” It may first be clarified that it is incorrect to suggest that the revenue proceedings were conducted in the absence of the 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff. It is an admitted fact on record that the plaintiff had in the first spot of the second site inspection sent to the plaintiff. said proceedings is evident from (Annexure A the inspection 44. has valiantly the same to be a forged and fabricated document Collector in above Ex. D-3). Further, as recorded in the order dated 27.6.2007 A16/ Ex. D-4 ample opportunity, controvert the said report 45. the learned Courts below orders “came into existence after initiation of the present suit on 16.07.1999.” palpably incorrect as Khasra Girdawari to filing of the present suit on orders, duly exhibited, passing of the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 by the learned trial plaintiff. It is an admitted fact on record that the plaintiff had pot inspection that had taken place on 20.8.1999. In respect of the second site inspection conducted on sent to the plaintiff. Further, the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the said proceedings is evident from his cross-examination reproduced above (Annexure A5), where he has admitted that he had inspection report dated 16.8.2004. The above facts/excerpts valiantly tried to demolish the report dated 16.8.2004 the same to be a forged and fabricated document in above-reproduced order dated 13.09.2005 Further, as recorded in the order dated 27.6.2007 4) passed by the Commissioner opportunity, he had failed to lead any evidence to contradict or controvert the said report. The above said revenue orders have been discarded by the learned Courts below firstly on the ground that the said came into existence after initiation of the present suit on ” However, the said reasoning of the learned incorrect as undisputedly, the application for correction of awari was filed by the defendant to filing of the present suit on 16.07.1999. Even otherwise, , duly exhibited, were passed by Revenue Authorities passing of the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 by the learned trial plaintiff. It is an admitted fact on record that the plaintiff had participated inspection that had taken place on 20.8.1999. In respect conducted on 16.8.2004, notice was duly , the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the examination reproduced above where he has admitted that he had filed appeal against /excerpts also reveal that the plaintiff the report dated 16.8.2004 by first stating the same to be a forged and fabricated document – as noted by the order dated 13.09.2005 (Annexure A15/ Further, as recorded in the order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure Commissioner, although plaintiff was given lead any evidence to contradict or revenue orders have been discarded by on the ground that the said revenue came into existence after initiation of the present suit on However, the said reasoning of the learned Courts below is undisputedly, the application for correction of was filed by the defendants on 11.5.1999, which is prior 7.1999. Even otherwise, the said by Revenue Authorities prior to passing of the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 by the learned trial 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court. As such, the same could not have been ignore Judgment dated 10.2.2009 considered by the judgments and decrees. therefore erroneous 46. plaintiff that findings of the Revenue Court have Court proceeding. circumstances of the present case, the said contention of the plaintiff is untenable. It is to be appreciated that judicial authorities i Financial Commissioner have brothers are in possession and are cultivating the land girdawari has been least, the said revenue dated 10.02.2009 are per-se admissible are sufficient to dismiss the case of plaintiff be made to judgment & Others” RSA No.3133 of 1987, Court. As such, the same could not have been ignore dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure A18) considered by the ld. Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. The impugned judgments and decrees are erroneous. It has then been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that findings of the Revenue Court have Court proceeding. It is my considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said contention of the plaintiff is untenable. It is to be appreciated that in the present case, judicial authorities i.e. AC Grade-II, Collector, Financial Commissioner have all categorically held that all the four brothers are in possession and are cultivating the land has been corrected in name of 4 brothers least, the said revenue orders have been upheld by th dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure A-18). The said se admissible, and judgment of this are sufficient to dismiss the case of plaintiff. be made to judgment of this Court in “Pal Singh & Others Vs. Uma Mehta & Others” RSA No.3133 of 1987,wherein it has been held as under: “Civil and Revenue Courts – Order passed by the revenue authorities was subsequent to the institution of the suit revenue authorities were satisfied with regard to the actual position, and that is the reason the order of the Collector Grade was challenged by the app Court. As such, the same could not have been ignored.In fact, even the ) of this Court has not been while passing the impugned The impugned judgments and decrees are been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that findings of the Revenue Court have no bearing on the Civil It is my considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said contention of the plaintiff is in the present case, thequasi Collector, the Commissioner and the categorically held that all the four brothers are in possession and are cultivating the land; and the khasra corrected in name of 4 brothers. Last, but not the upheld by this Court vide order said Orders duly exhibited which this Court cannot be ignored and . In this regard, reference may “Pal Singh & Others Vs. Uma Mehta it has been held as under:- Order passed by the revenue authorities was subsequent to the institution of the suit – The revenue authorities were satisfied with regard to the actual position, and that is the reason the order of the Collector II Grade was challenged by the appellants before the Collector, 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document finding of the revenu findings of the Civil 47. including the order of other evidence. Girdawari ent ground, cannot prove the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. law that the and thereafter the Commissioner revenue authorities held binding. XXX XXX XXX 9. ……… In this situation, it is not open to the clients of Shri Mahajan to allege that their possession with regard to the above said three khasra numbers should also be protected by the Civil Court. Shri Mahajan, however, submitted that the finding of the revenue authorities cannot supersede the findings of the Civil-Court which have independently come to the conclusion that plaintiff-appellants were in possession of these three khasra numbers. The submission of Mr. Mahajan may look alluring but on deeper scrutin merit. The order passed by the revenue authorities was subsequent to the institution of the authorities were satisfied with regard to the actual position and that is the reason the order of the CollectorI challenged by the appellants before the Collector and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 29.1.1995 dismissed the appeal arising from the order dated 2.6.1981. In the light of the above, the second submission of Shri Mahajan also does not hold any water. All the orders passed by the revenue authorities including the order of this Court are based on the spot inspection and other evidence. Hence, the bald statement of the plaintiff and Girdawari entry, which is shown to be contrary to the factual position on cannot prove the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. law that the best document to show possession is Khasra Girdawari. Page 25 of 32 and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) – findings of the revenue authorities held binding. In this situation, it is not open to the clients of Shri Mahajan to allege that their possession with regard to the above said three khasra numbers should also be protected by Shri Mahajan, however, submitted that the e authorities cannot supersede the Court which have independently come to appellants were in possession of The submission of Mr. Mahajan may look alluring but on deeper scrutiny it is devoid of any merit. The order passed by the revenue authorities was subsequent to the institution of the suit and the revenue s were satisfied with regard to the actual position ason the order of the CollectorIl Grade was challenged by the appellants before the Collector and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 29.1.1995 dismissed the appeal arising from the order dated In the light of the above, the second submission of does not hold any water.” (Emphasis mine) All the orders passed by the revenue authorities Court are based on the spot inspection and statement of the plaintiff and a Khasra ry, which is shown to be contrary to the factual position on cannot prove the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. It is settled best document to show possession is Khasra Girdawari. As 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document wrong entry was made in the Khasra sought correction of it. Needless to s wrong entry in khasra spot, is through the position by doing spot case, upon spot inspection, the defendants were found to be in possession of respectables found that the crop of the defendant was growing on the suit land. 48. that in case of held that correction of Khasra temporary injunction granted by civil court is not relevant is to assess independently the evidence regarding possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict about possession should be given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence. held in the above said pronouncements. In been held that: wrong entry was made in the Khasra Girdawari sought correction of it. Needless to say, the only mode of correction in wrong entry in khasra Girdawari/determination of correct position at is through the revenue officials, who will determine the position by doing spot inspection. It is not disputed that in the present case, upon spot inspection, the defendants were found to be in possession of their share of the suit land. It is also not disputed that s of the village were associated in the spot inspection. I found that the crop of the defendant was growing on the suit land. It has next been contended on behalf of the plaintiff in case of Gurnam Singh supra and Niranjan Singh that correction of Khasra Girdawari temporary injunction granted by civil court is not relevant to assess independently the evidence regarding possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict about possession given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence. Let us examine exactly what has been held in the above said pronouncements. In that: - “...If any orders for the correction of the Girdawaris have been made by these authorities, they would hardly be relevant in the civil proceedings adduced by the parties in connection with the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris shall have to be independently by the Civil Courts Girdawari, the defendants had the only mode of correction in /determination of correct position at who will determine the correct It is not disputed that in the present case, upon spot inspection, the defendants were found to be in their share of the suit land. It is also not disputed that of the village were associated in the spot inspection. It is also found that the crop of the defendant was growing on the suit land. It has next been contended on behalf of the plaintiff Niranjan Singh (supra) it has been Girdawari entries during pendency of temporary injunction granted by civil court is not relevant; and civil court to assess independently the evidence regarding possession adduced by parties before revenue authorities. No final verdict about possession given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of Let us examine exactly what has been held in the above said pronouncements. In Gurnam Singh supra it has “...If any orders for the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris have been made by these authorities, they would hardly be relevant in the civil proceedings and the evidence adduced by the parties in connection with the correction of Girdawaris shall have to be assessed independently by the Civil Courts. No final verdict about 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49. 50. that the ld. Civ revenue orders, but to make an independent assessment in respect of the evidence led by the parties the present case, no independent assessment of the revenue evidence has been done by either of the Courts below. court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is contained in para 15 of the judgment dated 16.2.2010, th follows:– “If any order for the correction of entries in the Khasra was made by these authorities. That would hardly be relevant in the civil proceedings and connection have to be assessed independently by the civil court. about possession should be given unless the parties had full opportunity of examining their evidence. There is nothing on record possession should be given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence.” This Court in “Niranjan Singh “6....The revenue authorities shall continue to be competent to effect change in the entries in the Girdawaris irrespective of the fact that the civil Court is seized of the same matter, though the finding of the civil Court the contesting respondents including respondent No.3 being a tenant or otherwise will over-ride the finding of the revenue authorities resulting in the change of entries in the Girdawaris.” A bare reading of the above pronouncements reveals Civil courts have been called upon not to revenue orders, but to make an independent assessment in respect of the evidence led by the parties before the revenue authorities the present case, no independent assessment of the revenue evidence has been done by either of the Courts below. court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is contained in para 15 of the dated 16.2.2010, the relevant ext If any order for the correction of entries in the Khasra was made by these authorities. That would hardly be relevant in the civil proceedings and the evidence produced by the parties in connection with correction of entries in Khasra have to be assessed independently by the civil court. about possession should be given unless the parties had full opportunity of examining their evidence. There is nothing on record possession should be given unless the parties have had a full opportunity of examining their entire evidence.” “Niranjan Singh supra held that: - “6....The revenue authorities shall continue to be competent to effect change in the entries in the Girdawaris irrespective of the fact that the civil Court is seized of the same matter, finding of the civil Court regarding the status of testing respondents including respondent No.3 being a ride the finding of the revenue resulting in the change of entries in the reading of the above pronouncements reveals il courts have been called upon not to merely rely upon the revenue orders, but to make an independent assessment in respect of the before the revenue authorities. However, in the present case, no independent assessment of the revenue evidence has been done by either of the Courts below. The reasoning of the trial court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is contained in para 15 of the e relevant extract of which reads as If any order for the correction of entries in the Khasra Girdawari was made by these authorities. That would hardly be relevant in the the evidence produced by the parties in with correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari would have to be assessed independently by the civil court. No final verdict about possession should be given unless the parties had full opportunity of examining their evidence. There is nothing on record 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to suggest the possession of the defendants. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiff that he had sown the crop of rice on some part of the land. defendants were in cultivating position as co on record proves the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.” 51. of the judgment 52. independent assessment has been made by the learned courts below. impugned judgments and decrees do not reveal as to why an independent assessment regarding the factual situation at t the learned courts below. There is even nothing on record to show as to what prevented the courts from making this assessment. In fact, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the revenue o upon the lower courts to to suggest the possession of the defendants. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiff that he had sown the crop of rice on some part of the land. No suggestion was put to the plaintiff that defendants were in cultivating position as co on record proves the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.” Similarly, the learned lower Appellate Court in para 17 judgment and decree dated 21.4.2011 held as follows: “17. Any change made in Khasra Girdawari litigation among the parties is pending before a Civil court is not binding on the Civil court. Emphasis laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the fact that application for correction of girdawari entries was pending even before this civil litigation was started by the plaintiff in fact is inconsequential because decision thereon was rendered by Shri Suresh Kumar, Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 26.08.2004 when the civil litigation was pending and the civil court was seized of the matter.” From the above it is clear that independent assessment has been made by the learned courts below. impugned judgments and decrees do not reveal as to why an independent assessment regarding the factual situation at t the learned courts below. There is even nothing on record to show as to what prevented the courts from making this assessment. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revenue orders Ex. D-1 to D-4 already on record upon the lower courts to take into account this valuable evidence and to suggest the possession of the defendants. It has come in the evidence of the plaintiff that he had sown the crop of rice on some No suggestion was put to the plaintiff that defendants were in cultivating position as co-sharers. The evidence on record proves the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the Similarly, the learned lower Appellate Court in para 17 and decree dated 21.4.2011 held as follows: – Any change made in Khasra Girdawari entries when litigation among the parties is pending before a Civil court is not binding on the Civil court. Emphasis laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the fact that application for correction of girdawari entries was pending even before this ivil litigation was started by the plaintiff in fact is inconsequential because decision thereon was rendered by Shri Suresh Kumar, Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 26.08.2004 when the civil litigation was pending and the civil From the above it is clear that in the present case, no independent assessment has been made by the learned courts below. The impugned judgments and decrees do not reveal as to why an independent assessment regarding the factual situation at the spot was not made by the learned courts below. There is even nothing on record to show as to what prevented the courts from making this assessment. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially in view of already on record, it was incumbent take into account this valuable evidence and 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document make the assessment suffer from material error. As such, is nothing on record to suggest the possession of the defendants.” situation the substantial evidence produced by the defendants of revenue orders fact that the revenue orders have been upheld by this Court vide order dated 10.2.2009/which has attained finality. 53. during cross examination of the counsel of the defendant inspection done by the Local commissioner, to get the spot inspection done. the plaintiff has categorically state Local Commissioner to inspect the site for the confirmation of the fact as to who has actually so cross examination is sufficient to infer that he has not come to the court with clean hands and he is not in exclusive possession of the land. also be pointed out that no suggestion was put to the plaintiff that defendants were in possession as co cross examination of the plaintiff reveals indeed put to the plaintiff to which Girdawari is in my name. No other person is in possession of my land.” these facts and situation, the evidence brought on record by the assessment as mandated by law. The impugned orders therefore suffer from material error. As such, it could not have been said that is nothing on record to suggest the possession of the defendants.” the substantial evidence produced by the defendants of revenue orders could not have been ignored fact that the revenue orders have been upheld by this Court vide order dated 10.2.2009/which has attained finality. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention here that during cross examination of the plaintiff a question was put to him counsel of the defendants as to whether he is ready to get the spot inspection done by the Local commissioner, to get the spot inspection done. In his cross the plaintiff has categorically stated that “I Local Commissioner to inspect the site for the confirmation of the fact as to who has actually sown the crop.” This sole statement of the plaintiff in cross examination is sufficient to infer that he has not come to the court with clean hands and he is not in exclusive possession of the land. also be pointed out here that the learned trial court has wrongly obse that no suggestion was put to the plaintiff that defendants were in possession as co-sharers. A perusal of the said cross examination of the plaintiff reveals indeed put to the plaintiff to which he had replied that “ is in my name. No other person is in possession of my land.” these facts and situation, the evidence brought on record by the . The impugned orders therefore it could not have been said that “There is nothing on record to suggest the possession of the defendants.”In this the substantial evidence produced by the defendants in the form could not have been ignored; especially in view of the fact that the revenue orders have been upheld by this Court vide order is also pertinent to mention here that a question was put to him by the whether he is ready to get the spot inspection done by the Local commissioner, and the Plaintiff had refused In his cross-examination (Annexure A-5), I have objection on sending a Local Commissioner to inspect the site for the confirmation of the fact as sole statement of the plaintiff in cross examination is sufficient to infer that he has not come to the court with clean hands and he is not in exclusive possession of the land. It may that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that no suggestion was put to the plaintiff during his cross-examination sharers. A perusal of the said cross examination of the plaintiff reveals that such a suggestion was he had replied that “As per the record, is in my name. No other person is in possession of my land.”In these facts and situation, the evidence brought on record by the 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendants could not have been ignored by the learned especially as no independent assessment was carried out by them required under law. 54. has to stand on its own legs establish his weakness of the defence their title, would not en demur to these propositions. Reliance in this regard is placed Dayanand v. S. Venugopal Naidu , (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 177251 55. reliance upon the alleged admission made by during his cross defendant cannot be read in isolation. The entire pleadings of the defendants have to be read as a total Statement, and the entire statements of the defendants have to be as whole. It is evident that plaintiff and defendants are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. So examination is inconsequential. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 227237 proceeding, however, the facts of the present case. defendants could not have been ignored by the learned y as no independent assessment was carried out by them required under law. It is also to be kept in mind that the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case, and he cannot take the benefit of weakness of the defence; or the failure of the defendants to establish would not entitle the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions. Reliance in this regard is placed Dayanand v. S. Venugopal Naidu , (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 177251 The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also upon the alleged admission made by during his cross-examination. However, the solitary stray admission of the cannot be read in isolation. The entire pleadings of the have to be read as a totality. and the entire statements of the defendants have to be as whole. It is evident that plaintiff and defendants are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. So, a stray examination is inconsequential. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saygo Bai v. Chueeru Bajrangi (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 227237, although rendered in a criminal proceeding, however, ratio of the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. In this regard, reliance placed by the plaintiff defendants could not have been ignored by the learned Courts below, y as no independent assessment was carried out by them as It is also to be kept in mind that the case of the plaintiff The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to and he cannot take the benefit of any imagined or the failure of the defendants to establish the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions. Reliance in this regard is placed on P.H. Dayanand v. S. Venugopal Naidu , (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 177251. for the plaintiff has also placed heavy upon the alleged admission made by defendant no.3/ DW1 However, the solitary stray admission of the cannot be read in isolation. The entire pleadings of the ity. The pleadings, and Written and the entire statements of the defendants have to be read as whole. It is evident that plaintiff and defendants are in cultivating a stray solitary admission in cross examination is inconsequential. Reliance in this regard is placed on Saygo Bai v. Chueeru Bajrangi , although rendered in a criminal ratio of the said judgment would be applicable to In this regard, reliance placed by the plaintiff 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document on judgment in distinguishable on facts 56. that the present appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the CPC and therefore, substantial questions of law be framed therein. However, plaintiff, the said law is obsolete and does not apply to State and Haryana in Panjakshi supra. 57. there are concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below and therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact 100 CPC. However, as per Section 41 of the “41. Second appeals. Court] 1919, section 2 (5).] Court subordinate to the [High Court] 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of 1919, section 2 (5).] following grounds, namely : on judgment in Biswanath Prasad supra, distinguishable on facts and on law. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the present appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the CPC and therefore, substantial questions of law be framed therein. However, as also admitted by learned counsel for the said law is obsolete and does not apply to State and Haryana in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Panjakshi supra. AIR 2016 SC 1213. It has been sought to be contended by the plaintiff that concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below and therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact However, as per Section 41 of the Punjab Courts 41. Second appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court] [substituted for the words 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of 1919, section 2 (5).] from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the [High Court] 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of 1919, section 2 (5).] following grounds, namely :- (a)the decision being contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law; (b)the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law; (c)a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908) or by any other law for the time being in force which may possibly have Biswanath Prasad supra, is misplaced being been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the present appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the CPC and therefore, substantial questions of law are required to as also admitted by learned counsel for the the said law is obsolete and does not apply to States of Punjab judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court It has been sought to be contended by the plaintiff that concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below and therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact under Section Punjab Courts Act: (1) An appeal shall lie to the [High [substituted for the words 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the [High Court] [substituted for the words 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of 1919, section 2 (5).] on any of the (a)the decision being contrary to law or to some custom or (b)the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law; (c)a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908) or by any other law for the time being in force which may possibly have 32 [High [substituted for the words 'Chief Court' by Punjab Act 4 of from every decree passed in appeal by any [substituted for the words on any of the SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from an appellate decree passed ex 58. allowed; and the impugned judgments and decre below, are set aside. 59. 02.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits. [Explanation. - A question relating to the existence of validity of a custom or usage shall be deemed to be a question of law within the meaning of this section] of 1941, section 2 (a).].(2)An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex omitted by Punjab Act 6 of 1941, section 2 (b).] In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is ; and the impugned judgments and decre below, are set aside. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the A question relating to the existence of validity of a custom or usage shall be deemed to be a question of law within the meaning of this section] [Inserted by Punjab Act 6 An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex- parte.(3)[Sub-section 3 omitted by Punjab Act 6 of 1941, section 2 (b).]” In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is ; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 32 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document