R.S.A. No.2555 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2555 of 2008 Date of Decision:01.12.2008 Mukhtar Singh .....Appellant Vs. Banta Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 4.3.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 17.2.2005 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran whereby he decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly except in due course of law. The facts which led to the filing of this suit are that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land being a 'Muzara Gair Maurusi' (tenant at will) at Village Gujjarpura along with other land as per the revenue record. He was paying `Lagan' (rent) regularly. He had moved an application for demarcation of the land. The same was also accepted vide Rapat No.135 dated 10.12.1996. The defendants without any legal right or interest have been threatening to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from R.S.A. No.2555 of 2008 -2- the suit land forcibly and illegally. On these allegations, the suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or taking forcible possession of the land in dispute. In his written statement, defendant No.2 has inter-alia pleaded that he along with others had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari on 3.6.1997 in the Court of Tehsildar Goindwal Sahib. The Tehsildar could not demarcate the land as the water was standing in most part of the suit land under the cultivation of the answering defendant as well as his brother. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Mukhtar Singh- defendant went up in appeal, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant urged with a good deal of force that Ex.D.1, the revision preferred by Banta Singh- plaintiff was dismissed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in favour of the appellant. She further contended that during pendency of the civil suit, the entries in the kahsra girdawaries were got corrected in favour of the appellant and thus, both the Courts below have gravely erred in decreeing the suit. I have well considered these submissions. To the query, she R.S.A. No.2555 of 2008 -3- answered that the basis for correction of entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellant was the spot inspection. It is well settled that the change in the entries in the khasra girdawari or jamabandi during pendency of the suit, is not to be made the basis by the Court for arriving at the conclusion. The Civil Court is to decide the matter on the basis of the entries in the revenue record as were existing at the time of filing of the suit. The Civil Court should not get swayed by the changes introduced in the revenue record pending disposal of the suit rather would over-ride such changes. To put it differently, the Civil Court is to decide the matter independently of these changes. It is own case of the appellant that the land being under water could not be demarcated by the Tehsildar. Mere spot inspection note could not be sufficient to make changes in khasra girdawari entries. The compliance of Para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual is necessary. In view of the above discussion, the findings returned by both the Courts below cannot be faulted with in any manner. No substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed. December 01, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No