Entries in revenue records raise rebuttable presumption, and in the absence of rebuttal, can be relied upon to establish ownership and possession.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The present regular second appeal is at the behest of defendants No.1 and 2 being aggrieved of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below decreeing the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interferring in any manner, by banna shikni or otherwise over the possession of the plaintiff as owner of the premises and the land detailed in the suit.

4. The factual averments made by the plaintiff in the suit are that he along with his co-sharers is owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khasra No. 65/4, as detailed in the plaint. It was averred that the land exists in the abadi and there is a family gurudwara. It was further averred that the defendants had no right with respect to the suit land but being influential persons, they were committing trespass through banna shikni. It was in these circumstances that the suit was filed.

5. On notice, defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement. Apart from raising preliminary objections, reply was filed on merits.

6. Defendant No.3 was proceeded ex-parte.

7. The learned trial court framed the following issues :-

(1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendants threatening to interfere with the same? OPP

(1A) Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

(3) Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit ? OPD

(4) Relief

8. The plaintiff in support of his suit adduced evidence. He himself stepped into the witness box as PW.1. Jamabandi for the year 2001- 02 and khasra girdawari for the period from Sauni 2003 to Hari 2005 were placed on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, respectively. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 stepped into the witness box as DW.1. Joginder Pal and Panch of Gram Panchayat of village Sehowara appeared as DW.3. An agreement dated 30.06.2011 was placed on record as Ex.D1 and photographs were produced as Ex.D2 to Ex.D12.

9. The learned trial court after considering the witnesses and evidence produced before it and after appreciating the averments made in the suit and the written statement, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2012.

10. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 and 2 filed the first appeal. Learned District Judge, Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

11. Hence, the present appeal.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the defendants and have gone through the judgments and decrees of the learned courts below and the trial court record.

13. Learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the learned courts below should not have relied upon the jamabandi Ex.P1, wherein the plaintiff along with Sukhdev Singh and Surinder Kaur were recorded as cosharers in joint possession of land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas comprised of khasra No. 65/4. He further argued that the possession recorded in khasra girdawari Ex.P2 could also not have been relied upon, as admittedly the land was inhabited area. He further relied upon agreement dated 30.06.2011, Ex.D1, to argue that Samitri Devi, Chiman Lal and Jaswant Raj transferred possession of one house built on 12 marlas of land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2.

14. While arguing the appeal, learned counsel has specifically stated that he is not pressing five questions of law framed in the appeal but is only adhering to the issue raised above. He concluded his arguments by submitting that in abadi deh, reliance could not have been placed on the revenue record and the agreement could not have been ig