RSA No. 623 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 623 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.8.2009 Rajpal and others ......Appellants Versus Manohar Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Ramesh Goyat, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration challenging the revenue record reflecting defendants to be tenants, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondents sought a declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 13 bighas 19 biswas on the basis of purchase vide sale deed dated 22.1.1958, whereas the revenue entries reflect the defendants as in cultivating possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenants, being successors-in-interest of Chandgi son of Khanu. Such entries are said to be illegal, null and void. The learned trial Court found that in the jamabandi for the year RSA No. 623 of 2008 (2) 1964-65, the plaintiffs are reflected as owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1968-69 (Exhibit P.3) Chandgi son of Khanu, is shown as a person in possession as Gair Marusi tenant. However, such change in the jamabandi has not been proved to be effected after notice to the owners. The learned trial Court found that there is no material on the file as to how the said entries have suddenly changed in favour of Chandgi. It is also found that the defendants have not led any evidence in respect of payment of any rent to show that the possession of the defendants is that of a tenant. However, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the defendants are proved to be in possession of the suit property. In view thereof, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the first Appellate Court found that there is no proof of payment of rent, which alone could justify entries in the revenue record from the year 1968-69. It also found that under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the suit for declaration is maintainable only before the Civil Court. Therefore, the suit for declaration was decreed holding that no relief of injunction can be granted against the true owner as the defendants have not been able to prove their possession as well, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the possession of the appellants is of more than 40 years and such possession is reflected in the revenue record from the jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The revenue record for such a long period, could not have been discarded at the instance of the plaintiffs particularly when the plaintiffs have not claimed consequential relief for possession. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The plaintiffs have RSA No. 623 of 2008 (3) challenged the revenue record, inter-alia, on the ground that the defendants are not Gair Marusi tenants. There is no evidence by the defendants to show that the defendants are in fact tenants. There is no proof of payment of any rent which could alone establish a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, the revenue record regarding the defendants to be tenants, is actually without any factual basis. In view of the said fact, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the learned first Appellate Court. Since the suit is under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, such suit for is for correction of revenue record, therefore, there was no necessity for the plaintiffs to claim possession in a suit for declaration under Section 44 of the aforesaid Act, when the plaintiffs have been found in possession as well. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.8.1009 ds