C.R. No.6719 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6719 of 2005 Date of Decision:25.09.2009 Rishi Pal .....Petitioner Versus Alam Gir & others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court granted a relief of injunction at the interlocutory stage pending suit that the plaintiff was entitled to be protected in his possession against the claim of the defendant. In prima facie proof of his contention that he was in possession, the plaintiff relied on the entry in jamabandi for the year 1994-95 and the revenue entries in cultivation accounts showing him to be the party in possession. The contest was entered at the instance of the defendant who claimed that he had been in possession of property more than 30 years and for all the previous years prior to 1994, the jamabandi had recorded his father's name as a person in possession and only in the jamabandi for the year 1994, the mutation had been effected in the name of the plaintiff in collusion with the village official. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court proceeded to rely on the revenue entries as C.R. No.6719 of 2005 -2- affording prima facie proof of possession and granted the relief of injunction. 2. The aggrieved defendant/respondent in the applications assails the orders passed by the two Courts below on the ground that if revenue entry in jamabandi is shown to be in the name of a person and a mutation had been effected, unless the basis for the mutation is shown, the entry in the mutation itself will not make available a statutory presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. According to him, when the jamabandi entered the plaintiff's name in replacement of the name of the defendant's father that existed previously, the entry cannot be relied on. Learned counsel refers to a decision of this Hon'ble Court in Paramjit Singh Vs. Jora Singh 1997 (2) PLJ 643 that held change in revenue entry, there being no order of revenue authority for changing the entry, would be invalid and ineffective against the person whose name had been earlier entered. In the absence of any justification for a change in entries, presumption in favour of the later entries would stand rebutted. He also refers to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. Karam Chand and another 1992 PLJ 616 that held that mode prescribed by the Financial Commissioner for change in khasra girdawari entries was that a Patwari, before making any change in existing entry, was bound to notify a person in writing who is likely to be adversely affected by such a change of entry and if entries are made in violation of the instructions, it shall be null and void. The attempt of the counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, be to show that the previous revenue entries in khasra girdawari prior to the change in favour of the plaintiff had been in his father's name and when it was contended that no notice had been sent C.R. No.6719 of 2005 -3- either to him or to his father, the Courts below could not have relied on merely the revenue entries as proof of prima facie possession. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel lend support to the contention that the plaintiff could not have relied on the entries in his name without proving how the change in entries had been made and under what circumstances the name of the defendant's father had been removed. In the absence of any explanation as the law would require, the grant of injunction orders by the Courts below was erroneous and the orders passed without considering the evidentiary value of the revenue entries in the face of express denials by the contesting respondent could seem to be legally untenable and accordingly set aside. 3. At the time of ordering notice of motion and subsequently when it was admitted, this Court has directed the status quo in relation to possession of the property to be maintained. I hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction and the status quo shall be understood as the property is not shown to be prima facie in possession of the plaintiff. These observations are merely on the basis of prima facie material available at the interlocutory stage without assistance of any oral evidence to explain one way or the other relating to revenue entries. None of these observations shall have any bearing for a final adjudication of the case on merits. 4. Subject to the above observations, the civil revision is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 25, 2009 Pankaj*