Jangir Singh and Others vs Kheta Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Defendants'' second appeal against whom the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

Kheta Singh, Plaintiff, filed the suit with respect to 45 kanals 9 marlas of land alleging that he had been occupying the same as the owner for more than 30 years by virtue of the family partition. During consolidation of holdings in the year 1965, the possession of this land was delivered to him and as such he had been in occupation thereof as the owner since September 16, 1975. The suit land was also comprised in rectangle No. 282 (8 kanals 13 marlas) and rectangle No. 131/24 min (6 kanals) etc. The trial Court decreed the Plaintiff''s suit excepting the land comprised in the said rectangles. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff filed the appeal. No appeal was filed by the Defendants challenging the decree of the trial Court. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court with respect to the land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 282, and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as shown in the revenue record. Consequently, the Plaintiff''s appeal was accepted to that extent. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendants have filed this appeal in this Court. Thus, the only dispute between the parties is with respect to the land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 282.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the trial Court rightly concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the said land, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily. According to the learned Counsel, the possession in the revenue record of this land was shown to be in favour of ahle hanood and the subsequent entry in favour of the Defendants was made without following any procedure. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the entry in the jamabandi and the khasra girdawari, Exhibit P. 3, in favour of the Plaintiff could not be relied upon.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

In the jamabandi for the year 1974-75, copy, Exhibit P. 3, followed by the subsequent khasra girdawari Exhibit P. 4, the said land is shown to be in possession of the Plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it could not be successfully argued that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the said land.

Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.