Entries in the Khasra Girdawari do not carry any presumption of truth under Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and merely constitute a piece of evidence.

ORDER :- This revision-petition is directed against a decree of the learned District Judge, Sirmur, whereby, the suit of the petitioner, for the recovery of Rs. 326.12 P, as mesne profits of land, measuring 12 bighas and 15 biswas, was dismissed. The suit was founded on the allegations that the land was owned and possessed by the petitioner, that he had prepared the land for sowing Rabbi crop for 1961, but that the respondent had taken forcible possession of, and had sown the Rabbi crop for 1961, in, the land and had also, illegally harvested that crop.

2. The respondent denied that he had taken forcible possession of the land or had illegally harvested Rabbi crop for 1961. His plea was that the land was evacuee property and had been allotted to Udho Dass, who had leased out the land to the respondent, and that he had been cultivating the land, as a tenant, upto Rabbi 1961. The respondent, further, pleaded that the land was allotted to the petitioner as a result of the scheme of consolidation of holdings, and possession was delivered to him in the month of June. 1961, prior to which date the petitioner had nothing to do with the land The respondent had, also, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the suit was triable by a revenue Court only.

3. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Sirmur who had tried the suit, held that the respondent had not taken forcible possession of the land but was its tenant, upto Rabbi 1961 and was therefore, entitled to harvest that crop. He, further held that the land was allotted to the petitioner as a result of the scheme of consolidation of holdings and that the petitioner was put into possession in June, 1961. But instead of dismissing the suit of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge ordered the return of the plaint to the petitioner for presentation in the proper Court, as in his opinion, relationship of Landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the suit was triable by a revenue Court, only.

4. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sirmur. The learned District Judge agreed with the Senior Subordinate Judge that the respondent had not taken forcible possession of the land, but was its tenant up to Rabbi 1961 and was entitled to harvest that crop. But he did not agree with the Senior Subordinate Judge that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. On the other hand, his view was that as the respondent had relinquished possession of the land, after the petitioner had been put in possession in June 1961, relationship of landlord and tenant could not come into existence between the parties and the suit, as framed, was triable by a Civil Court. As a result of his finding that the respondent was in lawful possession of the land, as a tenant, upto Rabbi 1961 and was entitled to sow and harvest that crop, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of the petitioner who has come up in revision.

5. The only contention, urged in the revision-petition, was that the learned District Judge had acted, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, with material irregularity, in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had not taken forcible possession of the land and was in possession as a tenant upto Rabbi 1961 inasmuch as he had excluded from consideration the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, showing the respondent in forcible possession of the land, on the erroneous ground that, as the Patwari who had prepared the Khasra Girdawari. was not produced, the Khasra Girdawari was inadmissible in evidence. It is, no doubt, true that, the view of the learned District Judge that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari could not be read as evidence, unless the Patwari, who had prepared it, was produced, is erroneous. The Khasra Girdawari is a public