R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Jit Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Partap Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that earlier the suit land was Barani and was, thus, uncultivable as there was no source of irrigation. The land was lying uneven and was covered with wild bushes. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had let out the suit land for cultivation to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and Jati without payment of rent. Plaintiff No.1 exclusively started improving the land measuring 6 kanals 18 marlas bearing khasra No.291//5(6- 18). Plaintiff No.2 and Jati predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.3 R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010 2 to 6 jointly started making improvement in the land measuring 22 kanals 1 marla bearing khasra No. 251//22 (7-14) and khasra No.292//1 (7-0), 2 (7-7). The plaintiffs had made the land cultivable. However, the entries in the jamabandi were changed in the year 1970-71 and it was mentioned therein that the rent was Batai Tihai (1/3rd of produce). Plaintiffs had no information qua the said change of entry in the revenue record. The said entries in the revenue record were wrong. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they were owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs were cultivating the suit land on payment of 1/3rd batai. It was denied that the land had been let out to the plaintiffs without any payment of rent etc. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land to the extent of their share, as alleged in the headnote of the plaint as Gair Maurusi bila lagan under the defendants/land owners? OPP. 2. Whether the entries of revenue records in column No.9 relating to rent payable by the plaintiffs showing as Batai Tihai in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and onward are liable to be corrected being incorrect and illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010 3 5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation ? OPP 6. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Sirsa. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the defendants are the owner of the suit land. As per entry in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71, it has been mentioned that the rent was 1/3rd batai. Similar entries qua rent continue in the later jamabandis. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in jamabandi. The plaintiffs had, however, failed to rebut the said presumption. The entry in the jamabandi qua rent was incorporated for the first time in the year 1970, whereas, the plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 2005 challenging the said change of entry. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 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 February 28, 2011 R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010 4 anita