This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed in appeal by the first appellate court.

2 Put briefly the facts of the case are that Prabhati Lal brought a suit against Bhajjan Murli, Bida, Kishen and Mangal, contesting defendants, with Bhanwarji and Dhan singh as proforma defendants in the court of the Assistant Collector, Lachmangarh on 3.3.52 with the allegations that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants have been cultivating the land in dispute jointly, that defendants Murli etc. threatened to interfere with their possession where upon the plaintiff brought a suit for grant of a Permanent injunction which was rejected summarily. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge and subsequently on 10.10.51 the defendants dispossessed him wrongfully. The contesting defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and pleaded that they had be possession of the land since long. The trial court by its judgment dated 3.10.52 granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire land in dispute. The defendants went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur and as can be gathered from the judgment of the appellate court it was conceded by Prabhati that he was entitled to a decree for restoration of possession over one-half of the land only. The suit was remanded by the appellate court on 26.9.53. As a result of further enquiry the trial court granted a 1 8.8.55 in respect of one-fourth portion of the disputed land (khasra Nos. 529 to 537 in village Behrampur, Tehsil Lachhmangarh, District Alwar.) Against this decision both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur The defendants appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was rejected in toto. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The documentary evidence consists of certified copies of of gasht girdawari for Svt. years 2003 to 2007. In Svt. 2003 the plaintiff is shown as having cultivated this land to the extent of two bullocks only out of a total of four bullocks; in other words, one half of the land in dispute. This position obtains uniformly in the entries relating to Svt. Years 2004 and 2005. In Svt. 2006 there appears a change in entries as the plaintif is shown as being in possession one-forth portion only. In this year the proforma defendants are shown as possessing one-fourth and the residuary one-half being in possession of the defendants. In Svt. 2007 there is yet another change in the revenue, records as a result whereof the contesting defendants go out of the picture entirely and the land is shown as being in the possession of the plaintiff to the extent of one-half, the other half being in the possession of the proforma defendants. The plaintiff alleged that after the completion of Svt. year 2006, the defendants surrendered their tenancy and hence in the following year the entire possession was with him and the proforma defendants. The trial Court held that the plea of relinquishment does not stand proved at all and that the actual state of affairs in Svt. 2007 should be deemed to be as that obtaining in the last year and hence the plaintiff was deemed to be in possession of one-fourth and was granted a relief to that extent accordingly. The learned Additional Commissioner has rejected all these entries on the ground that "if entries in the khasra deep are found to be incorrect on any material articular they must be recorded as entirely unreliable and not as partly reliable and partly unreliable.........No presumption of truth or genuineness attaches to the entries in the khasra-teep. It therefore stands to reason that if they are found to be definitely incorrect even partly they should be unhesitatingly rejected as utterly unreliable." Evidently there appears to be some misconception i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document