IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.194 of 1997. Date of decision: 15.7.2008. Smt.Soma Devi & Others …Appellants Versus Bakshish Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiff’s second appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court which has granted a decree for possession of the suit land on the basis of title. The plaintiff, approached the trial Court on the plea that the suit land was in possession of one Lachhman Dass, father of the plaintiff, for the last more than 40 years as a tenant. He died 4/5 years prior to the institution of the suit and the plaintiff being his successor was in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 plaintiff pleaded that the defendant has no right, title or interest on the land and was bent upon dispossessing him from the suit land. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the grounds that the father of the defendant was in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant under the owners much before 1952 and was paying rent. The defendant had constructed his house and cattle shed on the land for the last more than 30 years. The learned trial Court, on the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, held that they were not in possession but also negatived the contention of the defendant that there was any tenancy in favour of his predecessor-in- interest etc. To reach this conclusion, the learned trial Court, considered the entire revenue record which shows that there is not even one entry in the name of defendant or his father in the cultivatory column of possession. The learned Court holds that the defendant has relied upon oral evidence and the report of the Local Commissioner. This, according to the learned Court, does not rebut the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. None of the witnesses produced by the defendant could say as to whether his father or defendant were paying any rent. The necessary ingredients of adverse possession not 3 having been pleaded, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for possession of the suit land. The learned District Judge has reversed these findings. He has only believed the evidence of the witnesses of the respondent which is unsupported by the revenue record. The plaintiff is now in appeal. Three questions have been raised by the plaintiff, appellant herein, for decision of this Court: “1. Whether the findings that the defendant had filed to establish his tenancy or adverse possession and the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record which showed the plaintiff and his father to be in possession of the property and as owner, the suit of the plaintiff was to be decreed? 2. Whether the presumption of truth attached to the long-standing entries of the revenue record was rebutted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the plaintiff-appellant could be denied the alternative relief of possession on the ground that the details of the alleged dis- possession had not been given? 3. Whether on the material on record it was established that the plaintiff was owner of the part of the land and also tenant of the remaining land and as such, 4 entitled to the decree claimed in the suit?” Questions No.1 & 2: On the first two questions, the findings of the learned District Judge can be described as conjectural. Mere possession for a long period of time does not mature into adverse possession. The necessary ingredients have not been established on the record of the case. The claim of the defendant was one of tenancy and in the alternative of adverse possession. On both pleas, his case was negatived by the learned trial Court and rightly so as presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. There is no evidence on the record to show or suggest that the defendant or his predecessor-in-interest were ever recorded as a tenant on the suit land or there was payment of rent by the defendant or his predecessor in interest which would establish his ownership on the land. It is by now well settled that long standing revenue entries can be used for collateral purposes for finding out the nature of the possession. The possession of the plaintiff having been established, the evidence of the three defence witnesses cannot be relied upon as it is contrary to the revenue record. Both these questions are answered in favour of the appellant. 5 To say that findings of the learned District Judge are perverse would be stating the obvious. He has not made any attempt to look into the revenue record to ascertain the nature of possession but has been swayed merely by the oral testimony of the witnesses of the defendant. Question No.3: In view of my decision on first two questions, this question is answered in favour of the appellant. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court is quashed and set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. July 15, 2007. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.