RSA No. 4820 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4820 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.4.2011. Harvinder Singh and others .......Appellants Vs. Bachan Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was absolute owner of the suit property and had given his land to the defendants No. 3 and 4 on batai.. The said defendants had been paying share of crops/batai to the plaintiff and had been cultivating the suit property on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 4 gave possession of the suit land to his sons in the year 1996 and thereafter they started paying share of crops to the plaintiff. Since Rabi 2004, defendants had refused to make payment of the share of crops to the plaintiff and were, thus, in unauthorised possession of the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they were owners in possession of the suit property. They had RSA No. 4820 of 2010 (O&M) -2- got the suit property by way of a family settlement in the year 1996 and since then defendants No. 1 to 3 were in possession of the suit property. The suit property was joint Hindu Family property and the plaintiff had no right in the said property as he had already received cash and other moveable property. Defendants No. 3 and 4 had not taken the suit land on batai from the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had got 8 Kanals of land and defendant No.2 had got 20 Kanals 4 Marlas of land in a family settlement and defendant No.3 had got 24 Marlas of land in a family settlement from the plaintiff. The entries in the khasra girdawaries were also in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land and he gave the same on Batai basis to defendants No. 3 and 4? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether defendants are owner of the suit property which is ancestral and joint Hindu Family property on account of family partition? OPD 6. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and RSA No. 4820 of 2010 (O&M) -3- decree dated 29.8.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants No. 1 to 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are the sons of the plaintiff, whereas defendants No. 1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No.4. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of the suit property and had given the same to the defendants to cultivate the same and give the share out of the crops to the plaintiff. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed themselves to be owners of the suit property on the basis of family settlement. The defendants, however, failed to establish on record that they had become owners of the suit property on the basis of a family settlement. It has been noticed by the courts below that as per the revenue record, available on the file, plaintiff was described as owner of the suit land and the defendants were depicted to be in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. The defendants had failed to rebut the said presumption. Hence, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Gurpreet