R.S.A. No. 2314 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2314 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.1.2011 Lal Chand ......Appellant Versus Dona Ram .......Respondent ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant and the entries in the revenue record were liable to be corrected in his favour. Plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession as a tenant over the property in question. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was in cultivating possession of land measuring 73 kanal 1 marlas on payment of 1/3rd batai to the defendant. However, the entries in the revenue record had not been correctly recorded and it was recorded in the revenue record that defendant was in cultivating possession of the suit land. R.S.A. No. 2314 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The defendant, however, failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. Plaintiff led his evidence in support of his case. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was owner of the land in question and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. Admittedly, as per Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, copies of jamabandis for the years 1998-99 and 2003-04, defendant was shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Similar entries were incorporated in khasra girdawari Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 from kharif 1999 to Rabi 2007. The plaintiff had placed reliance on receipt dated 11.6.2008 vide which he had deposited ` 6947/- as 1/3rd batai in favour of the defendant with the Government Treasury. However, there was nothing on record to suggest that the said amount had ever been accepted by the defendant as rent from the plaintiff. The entries in the khasra girdawari are made on the basis of spot inspection. Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandis. The plaintiff had failed to rebut the said presumption. In R.S.A. No. 2314 of 2010 (O&M) 3 these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 Anand