The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to test the validity of revenue entries, and decrees pronounced by the Civil Courts hold preeminence over orders made by revenue officers.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood, affirmatively decreed by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal carried therefrom, by, the aggrieved defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also affirmed the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court. The defendants/appellants, being aggrieved therefrom, hence, motion this Court, through, the instant Regular Second Appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession and with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff further claimed that the revenue entries qua the ownership and possession over the suit land comprised Khasra No.1250 and the entries of ownership over Khasra No.1251 with defendants are wrong, illegal and collusive.

The plaintiff has further claimed that the land has been carved out during settlement from old Khasra No.248 measuring 4 kanals, 19 marlas, which has been shown in the ownership of predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and in possession of the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff one Labhu as tenant and the tenancy has never been relinquished at any time thereafter, but the defendants in-connivance with settlement staff after getting bifurcation of old khasra NO.248 into suit land has also changed the entries qua possession including the owner in possession over the suit land as the plaintiff has never been dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiff has further averred that defendant No.1 had instituted a false suit titled as Kishori Lal vs. Roshan Lal seeking declaration qua part of suit land comprised in Khasra No.1251 in which the present plaintiff being defendant filed counter claim seeking his right over the suit land, but that suit was withdrawn by defendant No.1 and thereafter the present plaintiff also withdrew his counter claim with permission to file a suit/counter claim afresh and thereafter the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court seeking declaration and injunction against the defendant qua the suit land.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, jurisdiction and locus standi etc.. On merits, the defendants have denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the suit land as the defendants have denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any capacity including tenancy as pleaded in the plaint. The defendants have further pleaded and claimed that father of the plaintiff had relinquished his tenancy rights orally in favour of the defendants during his life time and handed over the vacant possession, since then, the defendants have pleaded and claimed to be owner in possession of the suit land and has further claimed and pleaded that the plaintiff forcibly trespassed over part of suit land comprised in Khasra No.1251 in July, 1990, but the defendants have denied any tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendants have further pleaded and claimed that the entry during settlement was found to be incorrect as the possession of the defendants was found over the suit land and thereby the proper entry has been incorporated during settlement. However, the defendants have pleaded and claimed that he name of the plaintiff in column of possession on part of the suit land being encroacher has been recorded during settlement in connivance with settlement staff as the plaintiff has trespassed over the part of the suit land after the withdrawal of the previous suit by the present defendant. The defendants have specifically pleaded and claimed that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor-ininterest has ever remained in possession over the suit land in any capaci