The presumption of truth attached to revenue records can be rebutted by cogent, trustworthy, and reliable evidence. An exchange of cultivating possession does not transfer ownership of land. Adverse possession requires uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years.

M. R. Verma, J.: This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant (here-in-after referred to as the defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.6.1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kangra dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) for declaration and permanent injunction, has been set-aside and the suit has been decreed.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land comprising Khata No. 77 min, khatauni No. 237, khasra Nos. 3198, 3199, 3200 measuring 0-03-71 hectares situate at Mahal Nagrota Khas, Teh. and District Kangra (here in-after referred to as ‘the suit land) and the entries in the column of possession in favour of defender are only paper entries and thus deserves to the rectified by making the ethics regarding possession in favour of the plaintiffs in the revenue records and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

3. Case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land and are enjoying usufructs thereof, however, the entries in the revenue record in the name of he Megh Raj who had never been in possession of the suit land are incorrect. Said Megh Raj has died and his son the defendant on the strength of the wrong and fictitious entries is threatening to enter upon the suit land in order to dis-possess the plaintiffs whereas he has no right or title over the suit land. He was asked many times by the plaintiffs hot to interfere with the suit land and get the revenue entries corrected in favour of the plaintiffs but of no avail. Hence the suit.

4. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed a written statement wherein the preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the suit is not within time, the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit; the act, conduct and acquisance of the plaintiff is a bar to the suit; that the suit does not lie in the present from as the defendant is in actual physical possession of the suit land; that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction; that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper parties and that the suit is barred under Section 11 of the C.P.C. in view of the dismissal of a suit between the same parties and with respect to the same land. On merits it has been denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It is claimed that the entry regarding ownership of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs infact is wrong, baseless collusive and is inoperative, imaginary and made behind the back and without notice to the defendant. It is further averred that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit land because the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had exchanged the suit land with the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant entered in khata No. 16 min, Khatuni No. 34, Khasra No. 272(old) area 0-4 marlas situate in Mohal Nagrota khas as specified in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 and the entry about the exchange was made in khana kasht. It is further claimed that the said exchange was done as per requirement and convenience of the parties to the exchange and since the exchange which took place more than 20 years before, earlier the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant and thereafter the defendant is in possession of the suit land as owner by virtue of such exchange. It is farther claimed that in case the exchange is not proved the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant and defendant over the suit land for