RSA No.146 of 2008 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:05.02.2008. Narender Singh and others ... Appellants. Versus Paramjit Kaur and another ... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate,for the appellants. Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate,for Caveator-respondent No.1. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are in possession of half share of the land bearing khasra Nos.74/8/2, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21/11 and 20, which fact is duly reflected in the entries of Jamabandi's column No.5 for the year 1988-89. They also claimed half share of the usufruct of the land from the defendants. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Chuhar Singh and the defendants are legal representatives of Roor Singh, who migrated to the village at Mianpur Chingar from village Nalagrah to work as Carpenter. They alleged that the land in question was given to the brothers, who were carpenter by profession and settled in the village. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession, but their names were wrongly removed from the revenue record in connivance with the revenue RSA No.146 of 2008 :2: officials in the year 1988-89. The plaintiffs also claimed that they have not been paying any rent to any person for the last 100 years from the time of their predecessor-in-interest and their possession has matured into the adverse possession. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellants herein on variety of grounds including that the suit is barred by time. It was pleaded that Kartar Singh and Chuhar Singh, ancestors of the plaintiffs never came to village Mianpur Chingar, rather they settled at Kurali. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.04.2006 rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that they are owners. However, the suit was partly decreed declaring the plaintiffs to be in possession and also declared that the entries in Column No.5 of the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 were wrongly recorded in connivance with the revenue officials. The plaintiffs are also declared to be entitled to half share of the usufructs of land. Aggrieved of the aforesaid findings, the defendant-appellants filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge,Ropar. The appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007. The learned Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. RSA No.146 of 2008 :3: Learned counsel for the appellants initially raised the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court. It has been argued that since the land is shamilatdeh and the dispute is regarding the shamilat land, Civil Court had has no jurisdiction. The other objection raised is that the rectification of the wrong entries in the jamabandi can only be made by the revenue officials and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On the first question, learned counsel has relied upon Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. However, a perusal of the section aforesaid clearly indicates that where the dispute relates to the nature of shamilat deh land, and its vesting in the Panchayat, the Civil Court cannot decide the controversy. In the present case, neither nature of land is in dispute, nor the dispute relate to vesting of land in Panchayat. It is admittedly a dispute between two brothers regarding the actual cultivation/possession. It does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 13 of the P.V.C.L. Act. The second question is whether the wrong entries in the revenue record can only be corrected by the revenue Court/authority. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that Civil Court has the jurisdiction to rectify wrong entries. It is lastly contended that the suit simplicitor for declaration is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In the present case, the plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the property in dispute. It has come on record in the evidence of Piara Singh that the land in question is being cultivated by the plaintiffs through Piara Singh. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. Consequential relief is needed only if it is required in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs are in possession. The present suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 34 of RSA No.146 of 2008 :4: the Specific Relief Act. No substantial question of law arises. In view of above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 05.02.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE