R.S.A No.788 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No.788 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : March 10, 2010 Balwant Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dalip Kaur ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Toor, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent that she is owner in possession of 1/4th share of land, owned by her husband notwithstanding the revenue record. The facts are that the respondent filed a suit stating that her husband was owner of land measuring 211 kanals 7 marlas and during his life time, he had divided the said property into four portions, one for himself and three for his three sons. Before dying, he executed a Will in favour of R.S.A No.788 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: the respondent (his wife). It was further pleaded that though she entered into possession of the 1/4th share bequeathed to her by the said Will, yet the revenue record was wrongly recorded in favour of the appellant. The appellant on the contrary took up a plea disputing the Will and further stating that even during the life time of his father, he was in possession of 1/4th share retained by his father for himself and that after the death of his father, he continued to be in possession. Both the Courts below found as a fact that the respondent was able to establish that the Will was duly executed by her husband in her favour. They further found that after the death of the husband of the respondent, in one jamabandi the name of the respondent was recorded as owner in possession and that thereafter even though the revenue record was in favour of the appellant yet no basis were shown by the appellant for the change thereof, and consequently, decreed the suit declaring that the respondent was owner in possession of the land in dispute and consequently injuncting the appellant from interfering in the land in dispute. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the courts below could proceed with the suit after holding that civil courts have no jurisdiction to order correction in the revenue entries ? b) Whether the respondent was required to challenge the earlier entries in favour of the appellant ? c) Whether the entries in favour of the appellant could be held to be null and void after upholding the orders passed by the revenue authorities ? d) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? R.S.A No.788 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: e) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law ?” Questions No. (a), (b) and (c), which are over-lapping questions, have only been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has vehemently argued that even the Courts below have conceded that jurisdiction to order correction of khasra girdawaris lies only with the revenue Court. Thus, this suit which in fact is disguised as a suit for declaration but in reality a suit for correction of khasra girdawari could not be maintained. In my opinion, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The suit of the respondent was that after the death of her husband she was entered into possession of the property as owner on the basis of the Will. Even if she had not claimed any relief with regard to the revenue record, the suit could not have been held to be not maintainable. It also cannot be disputed that despite the revenue entry (which can in no case be permitted as conclusive evidence of title), the Courts below could have given a conclusion that the property was originally owned by the husband of the respondent and he had validly executed a Will in favour of his wife. In this view of the matter, the hyper-technical argument raised by counsel for the appellant is neither here nor there. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 10, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No.788 of 2008 (O&M) ::4::