The admissibility and probative value of entries in cultivation registers as public documents under the Evidence Act, and the non-binding nature of a purchase certificate obtained without notice to the defendant.

The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the suit properties. The defendant denied the plaintiffs possession on the date of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs holding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. This decree has been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod in first appeal. Hence this second appeal.

2. The suit properties are described as 16 cents of garden land in R.S. No.684/ 2C, 60 cents of paddy field in R.S. No.685/1A3 together with kumki rights appurtenant thereto. According to the plaintiffs these properties belonged to two sisters by name Kammadathu Amma and Kunhammar Amma, from whom the plaintiffs obtained a lease under Ext. X-1 Chalgenichit (lease for one year) and while they were in possession of the properties, they purchased one half right of Kammadathu Amma's share in the property from her legal representatives under Ext. A-1 sale deed in 1969. The defendant was formerly residing in a small hut in the Kumki land. He has no right or possession over the suit properties; but he is trying to trespass into the suit properties because of the disappointment caused by the refusal of the owners to sell the property to him. It appears that after the suit through a Land Tribunal as per Ext. A-10 order, the plaintiffs has obtained the other half right of Kunhammar Amma. The purchase certificate which was issued to the plaintiffs on 31-1-1976 is now produced along with C.M.P. No. 14673 of 1981 before this court. The defendant denied that he was put in occupation of the house in the kumki land. He sets up an oral lease of the properties in 1953 and claimed possession thereunder. He challenges Ext. X-1 lease deed as concocted document.

3. The plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence. The documentary evidence consisted of Ext. A-1 sale deed, Exts. A-2 to A-7 land tax receipts issued in the name of P.W. 3 Narayanan Nair for the years 1961 to 1967, Ext. A-8, A-9 rent receipts for 1139 to 1141 M.E. issued by P.W. 3 and Ext. A-10 order of the Land Tribunal in favour of the plaintiffs in regard to the other half of the Jenmam right over the suit properties. The plaintiffs also relied on Ext. X-1 chalgenichit (lease deed) executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the jenmies on 12-4-1959. This document was produced in court by P.W. 3 as per summons taken out by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is the scribe of Ext. X-1 and P.W. 3 is the son of Kammadathu Amma. The defendant relied on Ext. B-4 ration card which has been freezed for a short period, Exts. B-1 to B-3 extracts from the Paddy Producers and Rent Receivers from 1965 to 1968, and Exts. B-5 to B-8 copies of cultivation register for the period from 1965 to 1969. The defendant was examined as D.W. 1. He also examined two other witnesses in support of his case.

4. The two courts below rejected Ext. X-1 as concocted document and found that the lease and the possession set up by the plaintiffs have not been proved. For this purpose the two courts below also relied on Exts. B1 to B3 and B5 to B8 which show that during the period from 1965 to 1969 the defendant has been cultivating plaint item No.2.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that even though the burden of proving possession on the date of the suit rests on the plaintiffs, since the defendant has set up a specific contention, viz., his possession based on an oral lease, it is for him to prove his case and the issue in the case must be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. It is true that the issue in the case, as any issue in a civil case, must be decided on preponderance of probabilities on the evidence adduced and the circumstances emerging in the case. In a suit for injunction based on possession, the defendant could rest content by denying the plaintiff's case. He may also set up p