The presumption of correctness attached to revenue entries can be rebutted by evidence of unauthorized or mistaken entries, but the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the entries.

R.L. Anand, J. - The unsuccessful plaintiffs have come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming in appeal those of the trial Judge dismissing their suit for declaration that they were owners-in-possession of 1/6th share of the suit land.

2. The facts are as under :-

As is evidenced by Mutation No. 717 dated December 19, 1898, Ex.P.11, Devia had three sons, namely, Joti, Moti and Phinda. Joti died issueless and his inheritance devolved upon Phinda son of Devia and Rulia son of Moti in equal shares; that the plaintiffs are sons of Rulia, whereas the defendants are the successors-in-interest of Phinda; that the parties to the lis have been in possession of the land which devolved upon them on the death of Moti in ancestral shares till consolidation; that during consolidation, the share of Joti, which devolved on the sons of Moti and Phinda, was allotted to the progeny of Phinda and this necessitated the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of their share in the joint land which devolved upon heirs of Devia in the fist instance and on Jotis death, on Rulia son of Moti and Phinda son of Devia.

3. The defendants contested the suit and denied that the inheritance of Joti devolved upon Rulia, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, but they did not specifically deny that the party had been in possession of their ancestral shares devolving upon them as is evidenced by mutation Ex.P-11.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Judge :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land ? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, if not its effect ? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is within time ? OPD.

4. Whether plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit by their act and conduct ? OPD.

5. Relief.

Under issues Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Judge found that the revenue record produced by the plaintiffs established that they had 1/3rd share in the suit land and that Rulia, their predecessor-in-interest, did not succeed to the share of Joti deceased; under issue No. 3, the trial Judge found that the parties were allotted the land during consolidation as per their entitlement borne out by the revenue record anterior to the consolidation; issue No. 4 was answered against the plaintiffs and it was held that they were estopped by their conduct from filing the suit.

5. The first appellate Court affirmed the conclusions arrived at by the trial Judge.

6. This appeal was earlier heard by Honble Mr. Justice G.R. Majithia, who vide order dated 15.1.1992 set aside the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the District Judge, Ropar, to send his report as indicated in the order itself. It was observed by his Lordship as under :-

.......In order to effectively and finally adjudicate upon the rights of the parties, it has become necessary to permit them to lead additional evidence in the form of revenue records to connect the land devolving upon the parties and their predecessor-in-interest on the death of Joti. The evidence is required for doing substantial justice to the parties. The parties may not suffer because of the ignorance or inaction on the part of their counsel for not advising them to produce the link evidence which was available and could have been produced and the same would have conclusively established the rights of the parties and the Court would have effectively decided upon their rights. It will meet the ends of justice if the parties are allowed one opportunity to lead additional evidence as indicated above. The interests of justice require that a direction be issued to District Judge, Ropar, to permit the parties to lead such evidence as they think fit and in the light of the evidence to be brought on record as indicated and keeping in view the evidence already on the record, he will re-decide issues Nos. 1 and 2 and send his report accordingly.

In compliance with the order of t