RSA No.1714 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. RSA No.1714 of 2011(O&M) Jaswant and others .....Appellants v. Supyar Devi and others .....Respondents 2. RSA No.1731 of 2011 (O&M) Jaswant and others .....Appellants v. Supyar Devi and others ......Respondents Date of Decision: December 14, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned appeals. The present regular second appeals have been filed against judgment and decree dated 25.2.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide which appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 3.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide which suit filed by respondents- plaintiffs was partly allowed, was dismissed and, however, appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by respondents-plaintiffs was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants no.1 RSA No.1714 of 2011(O&M) -2- to 6 and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that respondent-defendant No.7 -Rao Abhey Singh was a big land owner. Out of total land of 1171 acres of land owned and possessed by him, an area measuring 1111 acres of land was declared as surplus vide order dated 1.1.1960 passed by Collector, Rewari, Ex.P11. There is no dispute that the land in dispute formed part of such land belonging to Rao Abhey Singh, which was declared surplus vide order dated 1.1.1960, Ex.P11. The said order was not challenged and the same has become final. Mutation No.150, Ex.P20, was also sanctioned in favour of Haryana Government in this regard, which includes khasra number in dispute. However, in violation of the said order, respondent-defendant no.7 is stated to have executed sale deed dated 7.7.1966, Ex.D1 regarding land in dispute in favour of present appellants-defendants no.1 to 6. The said sale deed is an unregistered document. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that no reliance can be placed upon the said document in view of bar created under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Moreover, even execution of sale deed, Ex.D1 has not been proved by present appellants-defendants no.1 to 6. Hence, it has been rightly observed that no benefit under the said sale deed can be granted to present appellants-defendants no.1 to 6. On the other hand, there is certificate of allotment dated 9.6.1979, Ex.P10, in favour of original respondent-plaintff, which shows that the khasra number in dispute alongwith some other khasra numbers, total land measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas, was allotted by Allotment Authority, Rewari to Amar Singh, brother of original respondent-plaintiff, RSA No.1714 of 2011(O&M) -3- since deceased and represented by his legal representatives. As per report in Rojnamcha Waqayati, possession of entire land measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas, was given to brother of respondent-plaintiff by Halqa Patwari on 17.6.1980. The said report of the Patwari was admissible in evidence. After death of Amar Singh, khasra number in dispute was owned and possessed by his brother Ranjeet Singh and after his death legal representatives of Ranjeet Singh, i.e., present respondents-plaintiffs. However, the revenue entries regarding possession are continuing in favour of present appellants-defendants. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that as per the entries in the jamabandies, present appellants-defendants are in established possession of the khasra number in dispute and hence even if sale deed Ex.D1 is not a legal document, they are having right to protect their possession. However, plea cannot be accepted. In my view, learned first appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that entry in the revenue record showing possession of present appellants-defendants are erroneous one. Though presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. In this case the presumption is rebutted by allotment letter and report in rojnamcha Waqayati showing that possession of the entire land was handed over to Amar Singh, pursuant to the said allotment. It has further been contended that observation of learned first appellate Court that ownership of surplus land of land owner shall vest in the Government from the date the same was declarerd surplus under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, (for short `the Act') RSA No.1714 of 2011(O&M) -4- is not correct as the land was not acquired under this Act and rather the same was acquired under the old Act. However, be that as it may, it is proved that prersent appellants- defendants are having no right in the land in dispute. Order vide which area was declared as surplus was never challenged by respondent-defendant no.7-Rao Abhey Singh. Alleged sale deed Ex.D1 is an illegal document. Entries regarding possession is also erroneous one. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed in limine. 14.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge