RSA. No.178 of 1983 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA. No.178 of 1983 Date of Decision. 14.11.2011 Parbhati son of Raghli, resident of village Ajmabad Mokhuta, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh …………Appellant Versus Sheo Narain son of Phoosa and others ……Respondents Present: Mr. Prabodh Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs’ suit had been originally dismissed but reversed in appeal. The suit had been filed in a representative capacity by the plaintiffs of the village Ajmabad, Tehsil Narnaul for a declaration that the jamabandi entry for 1972- 73 for Khewat No.3, Khatoni No.85 to 156 in relation to 3900 kanals of land as falling within 8 ½ share was erroneous. The plaintiffs were complaining that the entire extent of village was comprised in 8 shares in which the plaintiffs have 7 ½ shares and the private defendants had half a share. But by the modified jamabandi entry for the year 1972-73, total number of shares had been raised to 8 ½ RSA. No.178 of 1983 -2- shares and private defendants’ entitlement had been raised to one share. The plaintiffs relied on entries from the years 1952-53, which showed that the total number of shares had been set out as only 8 shares but the modification made was without any justification. The defendants had contended on the other hand that the Girdawar made a report on 04.11.1964 for correction of the shares as 8 ½ shares. This was continued for the year 1969-70, 1973-74 and the suit came to be filed when the alleged wrong entry continued. The trial Court while dismissing the suit observed that when the corrections had been made from the year 1965-66 and continued without any objection from the plaintiffs, they could not have merely relied on the entries for still earlier years to contend that the entries were wrongly made. There was no basis for the contention that the defendants were not entitled to one share. The Appellate Court set aside the trial Court’s decree by observing that there was no basis for the correction in the year 1965-66 and if there was no bar of limitation for the co-sharers to seek for a correction, the plaintiffs could not have lost their right by the only fact that the shares had been referred as 8 ½ shares between the year 1965-66 till the time when the suit was filed. 2. Although the appeal had been admitted in the year 1983, there had been no substantial questions of law framed and subsequently at the time of final hearing, the following substantial questions were framed:- (i) whether the decree granted by the lower Appellate Court on the basis of stray wrong entry in the jamabandi RSA. No.178 of 1983 -3- for the year 1964-65 is tenable when the consistent entries for preceding and succeeding years delimited the plaintiffs’ entitlement only to 7 ½ shares? (ii) whether the decree granted by the lower Appellate Court is not erroneous being against the statutory presumption of correctness of jamabandi entries relating to the year immediately preceding the institution of a suit? 3. I do not really find that the case addresses any serious issues of law. If the plaintiffs were claiming that the land was comprised in 8 shares and there had 7 ½ shares while the private defendants had half the share and was continued as such from the year 1952- 53, there ought to have been a basis for increasing the share of the private defendants from half a share to one share. Neither of the parties made attempt to show as to how the private defendants’ share increased from half a share to one share. The Appellate Court, therefore, gave the declaration to the plaintiffs that there could not have been a modification from the total number of shares from 8 shares to 8 ½ shares and by increasing the defendants’ entitlement from half a share to one share. The case cannot be decided in favour of the defendants only by the fact that prior to the institution of the suit for two jamabandies, the total extent had already been referred to as 8 ½ share instead of 8 shares. While there could be a legal presumption for correction of official revenue entries, when the plaintiffs were pointing to the consistent state of affairs from the year 1952-53 showing the extent of village as falling RSA. No.178 of 1983 -4- within 8 shares, there ought to have been positive evidence with the assistance of the village officials’ evidence as to how the 8 shares were increased to 8 ½ shares. I find no basis for a sudden increase of a half share for the defendants. There is no error in the judgment of the trial Court. There are no substantial questions of law to be decided in this case and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 14, 2011 Pankaj*