Gajjan Singh v. Balaki Ram

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Gajjan Singh (si Balaki Ram (sin

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

Ms MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre appellant/defend challenging the Appellate Court learned Trial Co Brief Facts

2.

Bri plaintiffs filed a continuous and situated in the re asserted that the THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

ince deceased) through LRs VERSUS nce deceased) through LRs and O ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assi s. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate fo r. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for resp s. Monika Jalota, Advocate for re -.-

ANNU, J. esent Regular Second Appeal dant No.1, now represented t e judgment and decree of rever t dated 05.05.1993, whereby the ourt dated 26.05.1990 were set as iefly stated the facts of the case a suit for permanent injunction a lawful possession of the suit la evenue estate of village Balaspu ey had been in lawful possession

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1259-1993 (O&M) served on:-03.12.2025 onounced on:- 12.12.2025 ploaded on:- 15.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant Others ....Respondents DEEP PANNU isted by or the appellant. pondents No.1 to 7. espondents No.9 to 12. has been filed by Gajjan Sin through his legal representativ rsal passed by the learned Low judgment and decree passed by side. e are that Balaki Ram and six ot alleging that they were in peace and comprised in Khasra No. 38 ur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It w n as owners for more than 20 ye

- ngh, ves, wer ther eful, was

and that the de unlawful manne They relied upo defendants be re

3.

Up statement denyi stand was that t 20 years continu any injunction. was not maintai allegations mad the plaint.

4.

On framed the follo

¶1for

2.

¶3Findings of the

5.

Fro the trial court r possession over prior thereto. Th witness box and the disputed la efendants were threatening to d er without having any right, tit on the revenue record to show th estrained from interfering in any on notice, the defendants cont ing the possession of the plainti they themselves had been in pos uously as owners and, therefore They further raised an objectio inable. The plaintiffs thereafter f e in the written statement and re n the basis of the pleadings of owing issues: Whether the plaintiffs are e ? OPP. Whether the plaintiffs are in Relief. e Trial Court om the appreciation of the pleadi recorded a clear finding that t r the suit land on the date of ins he court noticed that although P d asserted that the plaintiffs had and for the last 25/30 years,

dispossess them in an illegal tle or interest in the suit prope heir possession and pleaded that manner with their possession. tested the suit by filing a writ iffs over the land in dispute. Th ssession of the suit land for the e, the plaintiffs were not entitled on that the suit in the present fo filed a replication controverting eiterating the assertions contained the parties, the learned trial co entitled to the injunction as pray possession of the suit land? OPP ings and evidence led by both sid the plaintiffs failed to prove th stitution of the suit or immediat PW-1 Gamma Ram stepped into d been in cultivating possession his solitary and highly-interes

- erty. tten heir last d to orm d in ourt yed P. des, heir tely n of

testimony did independent co plaintiffs neithe village to suppo

6.

The upon by the pl Girdawari for 1 possession. It w column of cultiv to conclude actu filed, because th authority.

7.

On stated that he ha the certified cop 1987-88 to 1989 in pursuance of correction of Kh held that since appeal, the said

8.

In plaintiffs had co consequently we Issues No. 1 and dismissed. not inspire confidence, part orroborative evidence. The cou r examined any lambardar nor a ort their assertion of possession. e trial court further found that aintiffs, including Jamabandi f 987–88 and 1988–89 (Ex. P-2) was noticed that the name of t vation only for certain years, but ual possession of the plaintiffs he revenue entries were later co n the other hand, the defendant G ad been in possession of the disp pies of the order (Ex. D-1) and t 9-90 (Ex. D-2) supported his sta f an order of the Assistant Coll hasra Girdawari, the defendant w the order of correction had ne entries could not be ignored. view of the above discussion, ompletely failed to establish thei ere not entitled to the relief of p d 2 were accordingly decided ag

icularly in the absence of urt specifically observed that any other respectable resident of t the documentary evidence rel for 1986–87 (Ex. P-1) and Kha ), did not establish their cultivat the plaintiffs was recorded in t this entry could not be relied up on 27.05.1988, when the suit w orrected by the competent reven Gajjan Singh appeared as DW-1 puted land for the last 40 years, the corrected Khasra Girdawari and. These documents reflected t lector, 2nd Grade, Patiala regard was shown in possession. The co either been set aside nor stayed the trial court concluded that ir possession over the suit land permanent injunction as prayed ainst the plaintiffs, and the suit w

- any f the lied asra ting pon was nue for that ding ourt d in for.

Findings of the

9.

Fee

26.05.1990 pass appeal before th the parties and Appellate Court

10.

The successfully est years. The Cour 1972–73, 1977– 92 through addi possession. On possession for th such a long-stan

11.

The 88 and 1988–89 pendency of the earlier revenue r correction of Kh made with the c not displace lon

12.

The evidence produc years prior to th a suit for injunc e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved against the imp sed by the learned Trial Court, th he learned Lower Appellate Cour carefully examining the evide t reversed the findings of the Tria e Lower Appellate Court observ tablished their possession over rt noted that the plaintiffs had p –78 and 1981–82 as well as Kha itional evidence, all of which con n the other hand, the defenda he last 40 years, failed to produ nding claim. e Court further found that the K 9 in favour of the defendants w e civil suit, and could not be relie record stood in favour of the pla hasra Girdawari in favour of the connivance of the Revenue Offic g-standing entries showing the p e Lower Appellate Court held th ced by the plaintiffs established he filing of the suit. Since posses ction, the Trial Court erred in d

pugned judgment and decree da he plaintiffs/appellants preferred rt. After hearing learned counsel ence on record, the learned Low al Court. ved that the plaintiffs/appellants h the suit land for more than 20– produced Jamabandis for the ye asra Girdawaris for the year 199 nsistently reflected their cultivat ants/respondents, despite claim uce any Jamabandi entry support Khasra Girdawari entries for 198 were stray entries, made during ed upon particularly when the en aintiffs. It was also noticed that e defendants appeared to have b cer, and such corrected entries co plaintiffs' possession. hat the overwhelming document d their possession for more than sion is the primary consideration dismissing the suit on the basis

- ated d an for wer had –25 ears 91– ting ming ting 87– ntire een ould tary n 20 n in

isolated and re Jamabandi entri

13.

Con Court accepted dated 26.05.199 defendants/respo plaintiffs/appell

14.

Fee the learned Low Appeal has been representatives. Submissions of

15.

Lea judgment of the contrary to the the suit upon a the lower appe substantive basi

16.

It possession of th revenue authori submitted that th appellant for cor to be in actual p Girdawari entrie ecently corrected entries. The es further strengthened the case nsequently, in view of the abov the appeal, set aside the judgm 90, and decreed the suit for per ondents from interfering in ants over the suit land. eling aggrieved by the judgmen wer Appellate Court dated 05.05 n preferred by defendant No.1, The respondents appeared and c f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant/d e learned first appellate court record. It was contended that th correct appreciation of the reve ellate court has illegally reve s. was further argued that the he plaintiffs were wrong and ha ities after due spot inspection he Assistant Collector, while dec rrection of Khasra Girdawari, ha physical possession of the land in es, therefore, carried a presumpti

presumption of truth attached of the plaintiffs/appellants. ve discussion, the Lower Appel ment and decree of the Trial Co rmanent injunction, restraining the peaceful possession of nt and decree of reversal passed

5.1993, the present Regular Seco now represented through his le contested the appeal. lant defendant argued that the impugn is wholly erroneous, perverse he trial court had rightly dismis enue entries and oral evidence, ersed those findings without earlier revenue entries show ad been corrected by the compet and verification. Learned coun ciding the application moved by ad categorically found the appell n dispute, and the corrected Kha ion of correctness. It was submit

- d to late ourt d by ond egal ned ssed any wing tent nsel lant asra

that the plaintif undue advantag appellant also a discarding the Jamabandi for ignored the sign Lambardar nor possession. Submissions of

17.

On argued in suppo reiterating the su the plaintiffs ha more than 20– Girdawaris brou Khasra Girdawa was manipulated could not divest that the lower entries in the J judgment of the favour of the de Findings of Thi

18.

Hav carefully exami ffs were never in possession of ge of wrong entries earlier rec argued that the lower appellate report of the revenue officer the year 1990–91 which stood nificant circumstance that the p any independent witness from f learned counsel for the respon n the other hand, learned coun ort of the judgment passed by ubmissions earlier made before t ad been in continuous cultivati 25 years, as reflected from th ught on record. The respondent ari made by the revenue authorit d, illegal and carried out at the b t them of their lawful and settle appellate court had rightly reli amabandi and Khasra Girdawa trial court which was based sole fendant shortly before the filing is Court ving heard learned counsel for ined the record of the courts be

the suit land and had tried to t corded in the revenue record. T court misdirected itself in law r, failed to appreciate the la d in favour of the appellant, a plaintiffs had neither examined the village to prove their alle ndent nsel for the respondents/plaint the learned lower appellate co the said court. It was contended t ng possession of the suit land he Jamabandis and earlier Kha ts submitted that the correction ties during the pendency of the back of the plaintiffs, and theref ed possession. They further argu ed upon the earlier, long-stand ari, and had correctly set aside ely on stray revenue entries made of the suit. r the parties at length and hav elow, this Court does not find

- take The w in atest any ged tiffs ourt, that for asra n of suit fore ued ding e in ving

ground to inter learned Lower question of pos correction of Kh pendency of the plaintiffs' long-Devi Vs. Suraj correction of kh tilt the balance ordered. It is set after the institu consistent entrie rights between t agency for fisca possession based

19.

In appreciation of t to 1987 consis possession of th could not be bru made in the Kh when the plainti revenue author defendants did n years, despite rfere with the well-reasoned ju Appellate Court. The entire ssession, and the lower appella hasra Girdawari entries in favou e civil suit, cannot be treated as standing claim of possession. Th j Bhan, RSA-1294-1984, decid hasra girdawari entries during th in favour of the person in who ttled proposition of law that rev ution of a civil suit cannot be es, nor can such post-litem mota the parties. Such entries at best al purposes and cannot displace d upon evidence on record. the present case, the learned lo the evidence, held that the Jamab stently recorded the plaintiffs/a he suit land. These entries, carryi ushed aside merely on the basis hasra Girdawari for the years 1 iffs had already challenged the s rities. The lower appellate co not produce any Jamabandi show claiming so. On the contrary

dgment and decree passed by controversy revolves around ate court has rightly held that ur of the appellant, made during a reliable foundation to defeat his Court in the case of Smt. Ke ded on 25.11.1991 has held t he pendency of the civil suit can ose favour the correction has b venue entries brought into existe given precedence over earlier am corrections create or extingu t reflect the opinion of the reven the judicial determination of act ower appellate court has, with bandis and Khasra Girdawaris pr appellants as being in cultivat ing a statutory presumption of tru of sudden and isolated correcti 1987–88 and 1988–89, particula aid correction before the compet ourt has further noticed that wing their possession for the last y, the plaintiffs produced ear

- esar that nnot een ence uish nue tual due rior ting uth, ions arly tent t 40

Jamabandis (Ex documents, whi lower appellate

20.

Mo genuineness of appreciation of findings are sh substantial error evidence merely out to show tha relied upon any made during th worthy of relian

21.

Thi court failed to c was prepared a therefore could depicted the pla for discarding th preceding the di Conclusion

22.

In view that the lea perverse nor ill x. P-1 to P-5) clearly reflecting ich are part of the regular revenu court. ore importantly, the findings f the earlier entries are pure oral and documentary evidence own to be perverse, contrary t r of law, the High Court, in se y because another view is possi at the lower appellate court ig y inadmissible evidence. Its con e pendency of the proceedings nce, is fully justified. is Court finds no merit in the c consider the later Jamabandi of after the disputed corrections i not outweigh the earlier, long-s aintiffs' possession. The appellat he isolated later entries and pla ispute. view of the aforesaid discussio arned lower appellate court has legal, and are based on a corr

their possession throughout. Th ue record, rightly weighed with regarding the correctness e findings of fact based on e. It is well settled that unless su to the record or suffering from econd appeal, cannot re-appreci ible. No material has been poin gnored any admissible evidence nclusion that the corrected entr were tainted, self-serving and contention that the lower appel 1990-91. The said Jamabandi it in Girdawari had taken place standing entries which consisten e court has assigned cogent reas acing reliance on the regular rec on, this Court is of the conside returned findings which are neit rect and balanced appreciation

- hese uch m a iate nted e or ries not late self ntly ons cord ered ther

evidence. No su Regular Second

23.

Acc judgment and d upheld.

24.

Pen

December 12, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ubstantial question of law arise d Appeal. cordingly, the present Regular S decree of the learned Lower App nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

es for consideration in the pres Second Appeal is dismissed, and pellate Court dated 05.05.1993 stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- sent