RSA No.3107 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3107 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 08.01.2010 Bant Singh & others ... Appellants versus Pakhar Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Chibbar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate for respondents. **** 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 the judgment of the ld. Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the appellants-defendants for declaration that they are owners of the land in dispute having purchased it from two brothers of the appellant in the year 1951. It may be noticed that the sale in favour of the respondents is not denied. The only plea taken before the Courts below was that the respondents had not purchased the land in dispute but some other land. The ld. Trial Court held that the respondents have not been able to connect the land which they have purchased from the appellants and consequently dismissed the RSA No.3107 of 2008 -2- suit. Ld. Lower Appellate Court on conspectus of the entire evidence held that the land in dispute was purchased by the respondents and consequently decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the findings delivered by the ld. Appellate Court regarding the change of Khasra No. of the suit property based on presumption are perverse, illegal and not sustainable? ii) Whether the entries made in the missal hakiat carry the presumption of truth under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act? iii) Whether the suit for declaration challenge the revenue entries regarding the ownership, filed after 16 years is within limitation? iv) Whether the onus of prove that the property comprised under the present Khasra No. prior to consolidation is upon the plaintiffs who claimed title on the basis of the previous Khasra No.? v) Whether the ld. Appellate Court is competent to set aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the ld. Trial Court without any logical and legal reasons? The main questions argued by the learned counsel for the appellants are questions No.(i) & (iv). Learned counsel has argued that the judgment of ld. Lower Appellate Court is based on presumption alone and not on evidence. I find that this is not RSA No.3107 of 2008 -3- true. Ld. Appellate Court has relied upon substantive evidence for holding that the land in dispute held by the respondents was actually purchased by them from the brothers of the appellants in the year 1951 and also got redeemed from the mortgagee. Question No.(ii) is a general question which does not require any answer. As regards question No.(iii), it is answered by holding that respondents being owner in possession of the land in dispute could file the instant suit whenever the cloud was cast on their title. Question No.(v) does not require any answer. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. January 08, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE