2026:HHC:21863 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 607 of 2008 Reserved on: 24.04.2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 Krishan Kumar & Ors ...Appellant Versus Med Ram & Ors ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr O.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Surinder Verma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:21863 the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for possession of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint, demolition of the structure constructed by the defendants over the suit land, and mesne profits with interest @ 18 % per annum with effect from 20.03.1999. It was asserted that the suit land was recorded in the name of Niku, the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.4. He left for Kullu to earn his livelihood. He appointed Dhaniya, his relative and next-door neighbour, to keep a watch and vigil on the suit land. Niku could not return to his native village because of his poverty. Dhaniya also died, and his estate was inherited by the defendants. The defendants started raising construction on the suit land. The plaintiffs requested them not to do so, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above. 3. The suit was opposed by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement taking a preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by 3 2026:HHC:21863 limitation, and the dispute related to the tenancy not being cognizable by the Civil Courts. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the defendants are the tenants of the suit land who became the owners after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs, in connivance with the revenue staff, got the entry of rent deleted from the revenue record. The defendants constructed houses on the suit land by spending a huge amount. The suit was filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 19.08.1999: 1. Whether the possession of the suit land was delivered to deceased Dhaniya, Predecessor of the defendants as agent (Rakhwala) by Niku, predecessor of the plaintiffs, to look after the said property after his migration to Kullu, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the possession of the suit land was to be delivered back by deceased Dhaniya to deceased Niku or his successors on demand, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the deceased Dhaniya was a tenant over the suit land as alleged?OPD 4 2026:HHC:21863 4. If Issue No.3 is proved in the affirmative, whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by operation of law?OPD 5. Whether the defendants are liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs, if so, to what amount? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 8. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged?OPD 10. Relief. 6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and plaintiff No.9 Govind Ram examined himself (PW1), Prem Lal (PW2), Fittu (PW3), Gandhi (PW4) and Bhagat Ram (PW5). Defendant No.1 examined himself (DW1), Ashok Kumar (DW2), Hem Singh (DW3), Nand Lal (DW4) and Naranjan (DW5) 7. The learned Trial Court held that Dhaniya, the predecessor-in- interest of the defendants, was a tenant of the suit land. He used to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. He had constructed the houses over the suit land. The plea taken by the plaintiffs that Dhaniya was engaged as a caretaker was not proved. The plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the suit land or the mesne profit. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issues Nos 5 2026:HHC:21863 3 and 4 in the affirmative, the rest of the issues in the negative and dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was decided by learned Additional District Judge Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that Dhaniya was inducted as a tenant of the suit land. He used to pay the rent to the owners. He had constructed the houses over the suit land. The plea taken by the plaintiffs that their predecessor had inducted Dhaniya as a caretaker was not proved. There was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, the defendants have filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 17.11.2008: 1. Whether the Courts below have erroneously held the defendant/respondents to be tenants over the suit land when he fails to prove the tenancy and makes no application as proforma to do so, and the plaintiff is held unaware of the same. 6 2026:HHC:21863 2. Whether the Courts below have misconstrued the documents (Ext.P1 to P4). 10. I have heard Mr OP Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Mr Surender Verma, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 11. Mr O.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. The essence of the tenancy is the payment of rent. The revenue record does not show that Dhaniya was paying any rent to the landowner. The plea taken by the plaintiffs that Dhaniya was inducted as a caretaker was probable, and the learned Courts below erred in rejecting this plea. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 12. Mr Surinder Verma, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, submitted that Dhaniya was recorded to be a tenant of the suit land. The entries regarding the payment of rent were deleted at the plaintiffs’ instance. The defendants’ evidence proved that Dhaniya was paying the rent to the 7 2026:HHC:21863 landowners. This is a pure finding of fact and should not be interfered with while deciding the second appeal. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 13. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Substantial Questions of Law No.1 & 2: 14. These questions of law are intricately connected and are being taken up together for disposal. 15. The copy of the jamabandi for the year 1962-63 shows Dadku, Nanku, and Manglu to be the owners and Dhaniya to be in possession of the suit land. Similar entries have been repeated in the Missal Haqiyat Bandobast (Ext.D9), jamabandi for the year 1972-73 (Ext.P10), jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (Ext.P11), Missal Haqiyat for the year 1988-89 (Ext.P12), jamabandi for the year 1989-90 (Ext.P13), jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (Ext.P14). 16. The copy of the jamabandi for the year 1958-59 (Ext.P3) shows Niku to be the owner and Dhaniya to be a non- occupancy tenant. The column of rent mentions Gallabatai hisa chauthai (1/4th of the produce). A similar entry has been recorded in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (Ext.P4). 8 2026:HHC:21863 Subsequently, the entry regarding the payment of rent was deleted from the revenue record, but there is no explanation for such a deletion. It is not shown that any of the parties had reported to the revenue authorities that Niku would not receive any rent from Dhaniya as per some arrangement executed between the parties. It was laid down by this Court in Shyam Lal vs Johli 1995(1) Cur. L.J. (HP) 635, where the revenue entry was changed without following the procedure, the presumption of correctness attached to the changed entry is rebutted. It was observed: “31. At this stage, the procedure, as envisaged under the instructions for change of entry, can safely be referred. These instructions are contained in the Himachal Pradesh Land Records manual (Revised Edition) 1992, under Chapter 6, Maintenance and Updation of Land Records. Instruction 9.8 thereof is being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: "9.8 The crops will be entered in the Khasra Girdawari, as the inspection proceeds, in the column provided for the purpose. The changes in rights, rents and possession will be noted in the appropriate column in pencil. And, where the boundaries or area of a field have changed in such a manner as to require a correction of the field map, the Patwari will make a rough measurement, sufficient for the crop entries. All changes in rights, rents and possession shall be recorded by the Patwari in pencil and by putting a cross in pencil in columns 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28 of Khasra Girdawari in accordance with Govt. 9 2026:HHC:21863 instructions issued vide letter No. 10-5/73-II, dated 4-9-80. As per these instructions, the Patwari will give information of such changes to the Tehsildar/Naib-Tehsildar as the case may be. The Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar will inquire and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Inquiry should be completed within three months, and the entries will be made in Khasra girdawari according to the orders passed by the revenue Officers after entering in his diary." 32. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the Patwari while changing the entry in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1967. So any change made without any enquiry, behind the back of the tenants, without any order from any competent authority, will not be competent in the eyes of the law and have to be ignored. 33. The change in entry in the year 1967, being without any authority, will have no legal force at all, and as a consequence thereof, the subsequent entries made on the basis of that change in favour of the plaintiff stood legally rebutted.” 17. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amal Kumar vs. Bhupender Singh, 1976 PLJ 26, that the person who is likely to be affected by such a change is required to be notified, and proof of such notification is required to be retained on record. It was observed: “The Financial Commissioner has prescribed the mode for effecting changes in the existing Khasra Girdawaris. According to the instructions, it is the duty of the Patwari, before making any change in the existing entry at the time of harvest inspection, to notify in writing the person or persons likely to be adversely affected by such a change of 10 2026:HHC:21863 the entries and retain on record proof of the notifications. Further, the changes so made should be attested by the Lambardar or the Panch of the village. It is further stated in the instructions that entries made in violation of the said instructions shall be treated as null and void at the time of attestation of the Jamabadi or at an earlier stage. Under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887, the Financial Commissioner had the general power of superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers, and in that capacity, he has got a right to issue such instructions. In this view, I am supported by a decision of this Court in S. Mohan Singh V. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 1967 PunLR 377, wherein it has been observed that the standing orders can be issued because of the general power of superintendence granted to the Financial Commissioners under Section 11 of the Land Revenue Act. These instructions have been issued to put a curb on the unrestricted owners of the Patwaris to manipulate the Khasra Girdawaris in the way they desire. It was the duty of the Patwari before changing the Khasra Girdawari and making an entry in favour of the appellants to have informed the landowners so that they could come and contest the new entry, which was to be made by him if they so desired.” 18. This judgment was followed in Parmanand vs. Sucha Singh 1997(1) PLJ 474, wherein it was held: “As per para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, a duty has been imposed upon the revenue authorities to notify the proposed change to adversely affected parties. In case no notice has been issued, such a change in entry cannot bind the affected person. This matter came up for consideration in the case reported as Ram Sarup v. Balwant Sing and Ors., 1991 P.L.J. 278, and the Court relied upon para No. 9.9. of the Punjab Land Records Manual held it is incumbent upon the concerned revenue authorities to inform the affected person before effecting any change in the revenue entries.” 11 2026:HHC:21863 19. This question was considered by this Court in Harbans Singh vs. 1991(2) Shim. L. C.222, and it was held: 8. It is well settled that where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the Revenue Authorities showing how the change was made, although the presumption ordinarily would be in favour of the later entries, yet that presumption is rebuttable one and it would be deemed to have been rebutted by the fact that the alterations in the later entries are found to have been made unauthorisedly or mistakenly, there being no material to justify the change of entries. This is what has been found to have been done in the instant case, while the entries recording the plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the suit land have been recorded in the later Khasra Girdawari. In fact, the Financial Commissioner has prescribed the mode for effecting changes in the existing Khasra Girdawaries. According to the instructions, it is the duty of the Patwari before making any change in the existing entry at the time of harvest inspection, to notify in writing the person or persons likely to be adversely affected by such a change of the entries and retain on record proof of the notifications Further, the changes so made, should be attested by the Lumberdar or the Panch of the village. It is further stated in the instructions that entries made in violation of the said instructions shall be treated as null and void at the time of attestation of the Jamabandi or at an earlier stage. 20. This position was reiterated in Lal Chand & Ors. Vs. Pala 1999(2) Cur. L.J. (HP) 415, and it was held: 23. It may not be out of place to mention here that there is a legal presumption of truth attached to the latest entries in the record of rights, but this presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, in the latest record rights, as 12 2026:HHC:21863 discussed above, Pala has been recorded in actual occupation of the suit land as a tenant. His simple case, as pleaded, has been that about 40 years back, when Prem Singh, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3, died, he was inducted as a tenant by the land owners. This only reflected that prior to the death of Prem Singh, that is, Prem Singh was in actual occupation of the suit land, which fact is otherwise reflected from the entries in the record of rights, referred to above. There is no dispute to the proposition that the late entries in the record of rights to which a legal presumption of truth is attached were the result of the change made in Kharif 1979 pertaining to the suit land. In case this change was made in Kharif 1979 in favour of Pala, the defendant is held to be a legal one definitely, the later entries made on the basis of the same would be held to be a legal one. In case this change is not held to be legal, and the change made in Kharif 1979 is avoided, the later entries in favour of the Pala defendant shall automatically fall. There is again no dispute to this proposition. *** 26. The entries were changed in the name of the Pala defendant vide Ex.DW3/A, referred to earlier. There is nothing in this document that the present plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were present when this entry was changed. There is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that any enquiry was conducted by the Patwari before making this entry, and in that enquiry, the present plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 were associated. This report is silent that Pala was inducted as a tenant on payment of rent by the land owners. There is no evidence that, before recording this entry in October 1979, the earlier tenants who were recorded in this record of rights were evicted in accordance with law, or that they had relinquished their tenancy rights. Thus, at the very face of it, so far as the documents are concerned, which have been discussed above, the change in an entry in the name of the Pala defendant was made without any authority and against 13 2026:HHC:21863 law and procedure in this behalf. In case this entry is ignored, the subsequent entries made in favour of Pala automatically lose their legal entity. 20. This position was reiterated in Kashi Ram v. Harbhajan Singh Bhajji, 2002 SCC OnLine HP 13: AIR 2002 HP 154, wherein it was observed at page 157: 15. Therefore, in the absence of any admission on the part of the plaintiff conceding the possession of the plaintiff so as to enable the Revenue Authorities to change the entries on this basis, or in the absence of any legal order from either a Revenue or Civil Court, presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in Ex. PW-1/E is not available to the defendant. Though Ms Mehta submitted that the presumption is still available. To the specific query of the Court as to how the entries were changed as observed hereinabove for the first time in the year 1978-1979, no explanation could be given by her. In these circumstances, how the matter needs to be looked into is no more res integra. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram, 1969 PLJ 105. What was observed in this case and squarely covers the present case is extracted herein below: — “…….Where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries and the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the revenue authorities showing how the change was made, held, although the presumption (under S. 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would be in favour of the later entries but that presumption was a rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakably, there being no material to justify the change of entries………” 17. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that there is no lawful order on record authorising the change in entry, 14 2026:HHC:21863 as such, no benefit can be derived by the defendant either from the entries contained in Jamabandi for the years 1978- 1979 Ex. PW-1/E, or Ex. PW-4/K supra. 21. Therefore, the deletion of the entry of rent in the subsequent jamabandis has to be ignored. 22. Govind Ram (PW1) stated in his cross-examination that when the land was handed over to Dhaniya, he was aged three years, which shows that he was not of the age of discretion, and his testimony that the land was handed over as a caretaker cannot be accepted. 23. Fittu (PW3) stated that he knew Niku and Dhaniya. Niku left for Kullu and handed over the land to Dhaniya by saying that Dhaniya would take care of the land and should return the land whenever Niku returned from Kullu. This was discussed in his home where Niku and Dhaniya were also present. 24. Gandhi (PW4) stated that Niku left for Kullu and handed over the land to Dhaniya by saying that he would take back the land on his return. He stated in his cross-examination that this matter was discussed in the house of Fittu, where he, Dhaniya, Niku, Dahlu and Fittu were present. His statement that he and Dhahlu were present when the matter was discussed in the 15 2026:HHC:21863 house of Fithu is contrary to the statement of Fittu, who stated that only he, Niku and Dhaniya were present at the time of this discussion. Thus, it is difficult to rely upon the statements of these two witnesses as they contradicted each other. 25. Fittu (PW3) stated in his cross-examination that he had only seen one house on the suit land. This statement is contrary to the statement of Govind Ram (PW1), who admitted in his cross-examination that three houses have been constructed on the suit land. The statement of Fittu (PW3) that he had seen only one house on the suit land shows that either he had not visited the suit land, or he was making a false statement. Further, he has not mentioned any reason why the parties would discuss the matter of handing over the land to each other at his house. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly declined to place reliance on his testimony. 26. Bhagat Ram (PW5) admitted in his cross-examination that the land was not handed over in his presence. Therefore, his testimony does not establish the terms settled between the parties at the time of handing over the land. 16 2026:HHC:21863 27. Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff’s version that Niku had handed over the land to Dhaniya as a caretaker was not proved on the balance of probability. 28. Med Ram (DW1) stated that the suit land is cultivable. Two houses exist on the suit land, and one was constructed during the pendency of the suit. His father used to pay 1/4th of the produce to Niku. An entry of their tenancy was also recorded in the revenue record. The rent was being paid to Niku earlier, and thereafter, to the plaintiffs. 29. His statement is duly corroborated by the long- standing entries in the revenue record. As already stated, the predecessor of the defendants, Dhaniya, was recorded continuously in possession of the suit land as a non-occupancy tenant. Earlier, an entry of the payment of 1/4th produce as rent was also recorded, which was deleted subsequently without any basis. Therefore, the learned Courts below were justified in holding that the defendant’s predecessor, Dhaniya, was a tenant and not the caretaker. 17 2026:HHC:21863 30. There is no requirement for the tenant to file an application in the prescribed proforma to establish his tenancy. No provision of law requires that the tenancy cannot be established unless the proforma is filed before the revenue authority. 31. Thus, there is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence and the documents (Ext.P1 to Ext.P4), and these substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Final Order: 32. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 33. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 34. Records of the learned Courts below be sent down forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th June, 2026 (Nikita)