1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appeal, filed by the defendants, was accepted, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs, Smt. Parkasho Devi, etc., filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was alleged that Chuni Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was in cultivating possession of the suit land under the owners, namely Ajit Singh, etc., and that after the death of Chuni Lal, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land, being the widow and sons of Chuni Lal and they were paying rent to the land-owners. It was alleged that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land and were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was alleged that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was declared surplus in the hands of the owners and the land vested in the State Government and the Punjab State became the owner of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land and the suit land was allotted to them on payment of compensation, under the orders of the Collector. Agrarian dated 17-5-1985. It was denied that Chuni Lal was in cultivating possession of the suit land or that after his death, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land and were cultivating the suit land on payment of batai. It was alleged that in fact, the defendants were in possession of the suit land since Rabi 1983, after the earlier occupant of the suit land had left its possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues.

3. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were entitled to injunction. However, the appeal, filed by the defendants, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs, was dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession over the suit land. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed Regular Second Appeal in this Court.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal:-

"Whether the subsequent revenue entries in favour of the defendants could be made the basis for holding the defendants to be in possession of the suit property, even though the later revenue entries had come into existence without any notice to the previous occupiers".

5. In the present case, as referred to above, the trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit property. While coming to this conclusion, the learned trial Court had ignored the later revenue entries from Rabi 1983 onwards, whereby the names of the defendants, for the first time, were recorded being in cultivating possession of the suit land, even though prior thereto, in all the revenue entries, Chuni Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was recorded in possession of the suit land. While coming to this conclusion, the learned trial Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court, in the case reported as Sadhu Ram V/s. Jagdish, 1982 Pun LJ 371, in which it was laid down that where the Khasra Girdawari entries had been corrected, behind the back of the tenant, who was recorded in possession in the revenue records, such revenue entries would have no