IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 298 of 1999 Reserved on : 29.5.2008 Date of decision : 3rd June, 2008. Lachhmi Ram and others. Appellants Versus Gita Ram and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. K.D. Sood & Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Deep, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of presumption of truth attached to the revenue records, Ex.PA, DA and DB Jamabandis for the years 1951-52, 1963-64 and 1982-83 and the presumption raised by Section 104(4) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the Court below is justified in holding that defendant/appellants have failed to establish their tenancy on the suit land. 2. Whether the court below has misconstrued the pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence and the findings that the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.. appellants were not tenants on the land in suit is not sustainable in law? Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for joint possession of 1/8th share of the land comprised in Khata No. 14/15, Khatauni No. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48, Khata No.23 Khatauni No. 17 measuring 5-14 bighas, Khata No. 35/36 Khatauni No. 118 measuring 5-17 bighas and Khatauni No.119 measuring 6-00 bighas, Khata No.13 Khatauni No.42 measuring 1-6 bigha situate in Mouza Baghali, Tehsil and District Shimla. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are the sons of Asa Ram, who died two years prior to the filing of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, Med Ram (original defendant) predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants was also joint owner in the land. Plaintiffs alleged that Med Ram has got wrong revenue entries incorporated in the Jamabandis showing him to be both mortgager and non-occupancy tenant in respect of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs their father Asa Ram had given the land on contract to Med Ram. There was no tenancy created in his favour. They claimed that the possession of Med Ram is on behalf of all the co- sharers and hence claimed joint possession qua 1/8 shares. Defendant Med Ram filed written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised. It would be pertinent to mention that respondent Med Ram did not claim tenancy over the suit land. He did not claim to be in possession as tenant or mortgagee. A specific plea was taken that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. Evidence was led by the parties. Evidence of both the parties to say the least is totally inconclusive to prove their case. However, from the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi Ext. PA for the year 1982-83, Jamabandi Ext.DA for the year 1951-52, Jamabandi Ext.DB for the year 1963-64, it is clear that both Asa Ram and Med Ram alongwith others are shown as co-owners of the suit land. Asa Ram, undisputedly, had 1/8 share in the land. As far as Med Ram is concerned the entries show that he is in possession both as Mortgagee and as Gair-Marvisi tenant. Ram Rattan, one of the sons of Med Ram, stepped into the witness box as DW-1. In his statement he did not say a word as to in what capacity his father Med Ram was in possession of the suit land. He admitted that the suit land was joint though he feigned ignorance about the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land. He stated that he was not sure whether the land was in possession of his father as mortgagee or as tenant. He only claimed possession of the suit land. Both the Courts below have come to a clear finding of fact that the entries in the revenue record cannot be relied upon in view of the stand taken by the defendants and the statement of Ram Rattan. In the written statement, the defendant did not claim to be in possession as tenant or mortgagee. He claimed to have become owner by way of adverse possession. A person taking the plea of adverse possession obviously admits the title of the other party. This adverse possession was not proved. The defendants have neither pleaded nor proved that they were mortgagees or tenants in the suit land. Therefore, there possession is only as co-owners and not in any other capacity. Since they are co-owners, the entries showing them to be mortgagee/tenants are not correct and as such no reliance can be placed on them. No doubt, the presumption of truth, is attached to revenue entries. However, this does not mean that such entries cannot be disproved by leading cogent evidence. In this case the defendants themselves are not clear as to in which capacity they are in possession of the suit land. Their stand in the written statement and in evidence is contrary to the revenue entries and therefore, no reliance on the revenue entries can be placed. It is, therefore, obvious that the land is owned jointly and after declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession they can apply for partition and actual possession of the land. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal. Both substantial questions of law do not arise. However, in view of the fact that appeal has been admitted on the substantial questions framed. I answer question No.1 by holding that presumption of truth attached to the revenue record is rebutted by the evidence and stand of the parties and the question is accordingly decided against the appellants. Question No.2 is answered by holding that the Courts below have not misconstrued the pleadings or evidence led by the parties. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 3rd June, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™