The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of revenue record entries and the presumption of truth attached to them under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, in determining possession and inheritance rights.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Muktsar holding that plaintiff-respondent is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in her peaceful possession and from dispossessing her forcibly. The only question which arises for the consideration in this appeal is whether under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for brevity the Act) the entries made in the record of rights would be presumed to be correct ? The learned trial Court had ignored the entries in the revenue record as contained in jamabandies and khasra girdwaris Ex. P.1 to P.6 and came to the conclusion that defendant- appellant must be held to be in possession on the basis of the sale deeds executed in his favour on 2.2.1995 and 24.9.1996 Exs. D.1 and D.2. However, the Addl. District Judge found that such entries cannot be ignored because the presumption of truth is attached to such entries.

2. Briefly the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent is that the suit land situated at village Shaib Chand, Tehsil Girdderbaha was originally in possession of her husband Joginder Singh who was this owner. The aforementioned land as inherited by her and her children after the death of her husband. However, the defendant-appellant took the plea that the he had purchased the same alongwith some other land from the original owner vide two sale deeds dated 2.2.1995 and 24.9.1996 Ex.D.1 and D.2 respectively. He also claimed possession of the suit land on the basis of the recitals in the sale deed. He examined the scribe of the sale deed namely Mohan Lal Arora and Mukand Lal Baghal as DW 3 and DW 4, and the attesting witnesses of both the sale deeds. Shri Kartar Singh, Lambardar DW 5 have also been examined. Plaintiff-respondent has produced on record the entries made in khasra girdawaris for the years 1995 to 2000 as Ex. P.2 to Ex.P.5. The entries of jamabandi have also been produced on record as P1 P6. It is in these circumstances that the ld. Addl. District Judge concluded that the entries in the revenue record must be extended to the plaintiff-respondent and held as under :

"But to my mind the learned trial Court while holding so have not referred to the revenue entries as contained in the jamabandies and khasra girdawaris produced on record as Ex.P.1 to P.6. In Jamabadi for the year 1992-93 as well as for the year 1992-93 as well as for the year 1997-98, copies Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 the disputed khasra number has been shown to be in exclusive possession of Joginder Singh as co-sharer. Same position is depicted in the entries made in khasra girdawari from the year 1995 to 2000, copies of which have been produced on record Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. It may be clarified that entries in jamabandi fall within the zone of record of rights and a presumption of truth is attached thereto whereas entries in khasra girdawaris do not fall within the description of record of rights but they constitute a relevant fact under Section 85 of the Evidence Act, since these are recorded by a public servant in discharge of his official duty. These entries can very well be used for determining the possession of a party over the disputed khasra numbers. The entries in this revenue record as discussed above show that the husband of the appellant was in possession of the land in dispute as co-sharer. There is nothing on record to suggest that vendors of the respondents were in possession of the disputed khasra number. Admittedly, they executed the sale deeds in question in his favour vide which he is stated to have purchased the disputed khasra number how they could deliver possession of the same to him. In view of this reference to delivery of possession made in the sale deed in question on record that husband of the appellant was in possession over the disputed khasra number as per t