IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 266 of 1999. Judgement reserved on: 5.4.2010. Date of decision: 6.5.2010. Bias Dev ….. Appellant. Vs. Jai Dei (deceased) & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Dev, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The plaintiff has come in appeal against the judgement, decree dated 14.12.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 104/96 affirming the judgement, decree dated 1.10.1996 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sarkaghat in Civil Suit No. 25/1995. 2. The facts in brief are that land comprised in khewat No. 93/94 khatauni No. 243, khasra No. 204, measuring 0-13-03 hectares, Village Bagh Illaqa Bhadrota, Tehsil Sarkaghat is recorded in the ownership of the appellant but in possession of predecessor-in- interest of respondents. The entry showing the respondents in possession is wrong and not binding on the rights of the appellant. It Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… is also the case of the appellant that land comprised in khewat No. 93/94, khatauni No. 244, khasra Nos. 211, 211/1 kitas 2, measuring 0-3-67 hectares is recorded in the ownership of appellant but in exclusive possession of respondents No. 5 and 6. The entry showing respondents No. 5 and 6 in possession is wrong and not binding on the rights of the appellant. The appellant has prayed declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the entries showing respondents in possession are wrong. A prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the suit land has also been made. In the alternative, it has been prayed that in case respondents are found in possession or during the pendency of the suit they take forcible possession of the suit land then decree for possession may also be passed in favour of the appellant. 3. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability as the appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, pleas of lack of cause of action, limitation and estoppel were also taken. In response to para 1(a) of the plaint, it has been submitted that entry of ownership of appellant is wrong, Baldev is owner in possession of the land in question whose father had purchased the land comprised in khasra No. 775/736 corresponding to new khasra No. 204 on 15.4.1957 vide mutation No. 160 for consideration of Rs.2000/-. The respondent No. 2 is in possession since 1957 as owner of the suit land described in para 1(a) of the plaint. The entry showing the possession of respondents is correct. …3… In reply to para 1(b) of the plaint, it has been submitted that respondents No. 5 and 6 had purchased the land in question comprised in khasra No. 736 measuring 18-3-12 bighas in the year 1949 for Rs.2000/-. Out of this amount respondents No. 5 and 6 had sold some land to Tulsi, Balbh and Bias Dev, who became co-sharers with respondents No. 5 and 6. On partition, the suit land was allotted to respondents No. 5 and 6, who are owners in possession of the suit land, hence suit of the appellant is not maintainable. 4. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the revenue entry contrary to this are wrong and illegal? OPP. 3. Relief. The issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the appellant by the learned Sub Judge on 1.10.1996 and the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge on 14.12.1998 affirmed the judgement, decree dated 1.10.1996 of trial court. The plaintiff has come in second appeal against the judgement and decree dated 14.12.1998, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the presumption of truth to the long standing entries in the record of right since 1950 attached Under Section 45 can be said to have been rebutted by mutation entries, to which no presumption of truth is attached, without any oral or other evidence produced or rebutting the presumption of truth. …4… 2. Whether the Court below is wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without there being any basis when even the land purported to have been purchased by the defendant is not connected by the suit land. 5. I have heard Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jai Dev, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that presumption of truth attached to long standing revenue record cannot be rebutted by mutation entries. There is no legal evidence on record to rebut the presumption of truth attached to long standing revenue record. The land allegedly purchased by the respondents has not been connected with the suit land, hence the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned judgement and decree. 6. Both the substantial questions of law are interconnected, therefore, both of them are being taken up together for disposal. In jamabandi Ex. P 1 for the year 1990-91 of the suit land the appellant had been recorded owner of the suit land. Ragha predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been recorded in possession of khasra No. 204 in Ex. P-1 on account of sale. The appellant has disputed the correctness of entry of possession of Ragha in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91, however, he has not appeared in the witness box to establish his case and to prove that instead of Ragha he had been in possession of khasra No. 204. The entries in missal hakiat …5… bandobast jadid Ex. P-2 are identical to entries of jamabandi Ex. P-1 regarding khasra No. 204 and khasra Nos. 211, 211/1. In the settlement Ragha was found in possession of khasra No. 204 on account of sale and, therefore, his possession was recorded on khasra No. 204. The mutation Ex. D-2 indicates that Ragha had purchased a portion of khasra No. 736. The respondents No. 5 and 6 are recorded in possession of khasra Nos. 211 and 211/1 in jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ex. P-1 and missal hakiat Ex. P-2. The mutation Ex. D-1 further indicates that respondents No. 5 and 6 had purchased khasra No. 736, therefore, respondents No. 5 and 6 have been rightly recorded in possession of khasra No. 211 and 211/1. Ex. P-3 is the jamabandi for the year 1964-65 showing the land comprised in khasra No. 775/336 owned and possessed by Ragha etc. As per missal hakiat Ex. P-2 khasra Nos. 211 and 211/1 correspond to khasra Nos. 775/736/1min and khasra No. 775/736/1min. The respondents No. 5 and 6 have thus been rightly recorded in possession of khasra Nos. 211 and 211/1 in Ex. P-1 jamabandi 1990-91. 7. The two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out mis-construction and mis-interpretation of material on record. The appellant has not appeared in the witness box. It was for the appellant to prove his case. It has not been established that impugned judgement and decree are perverse or the view taken by the two courts below does not emerge from the evidence on record. …6… The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are decided against the appellant. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. May 6, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.