R.S.A.No. 3060 of 1997 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3060 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2011 Gram Panchayat Chawinda Kalan ......Appellant Versus Balraj Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration that the suit land be declared to be owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and the plaintiff be declared as co-sharers in possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Chawinda Kalan. The plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the suit land being co-sharer. Defendant-Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. However, the defendant-Gram Panchayat was threatening to lease out the land and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land R.S.A.No. 3060 of 1997 (O&M) 2 forcibly. Defendant-Gram Panchayat, in its written statement, denied that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. It was averred that the suit land was owned and managed by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff was tenant under the Gram Panchayat. The suit land was given to the plaintiffs for one year i.e. for 1994-95. After the expiry of lease period, plaintiff was liable to hand over the vacant possession to the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the suit land is owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan of village Chawinda Kalan? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as co-sharer? OPP 3. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.1996, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant- Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal and the R.S.A.No. 3060 of 1997 (O&M) 3 same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.1997. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Gram Panchayat. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. As per Ex.P-1, the suit property is described as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan hasab rasad kabja khewatdar . In the column of possession, the name of the plaintiff is described. Thus, as per the revenue reecord, the suit property is described to be owned by khewatdar of the village and is in possession of the plaintiff as a co- sharer. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. Defendant had failed to rebut the said presumption. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that the suit land was owned by Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and plaintiff was in possession of the same as a co-sharer. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 anita