The presumption of truth in favor of the plaintiffs based on entries in the revenue record and the repelling of adverse possession when there is a claim of title pursuant to a sale document.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the defendants (appellants herein) against the concurrent findings of decreetal of suit by the Courts below, in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein).

2. Suit filed by the plaintiffs – Vijay Pal and Smt. Chandro, is for seeking a decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction by claiming that they are owners in possession of Khasra No.80 (1-4), comprised in Khewat No.116 and Khatauni No.130, situated in the revenue estate of village Dharan, Tehsil Bawal. Plaintiffs sought injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. Plaintiffs also sought for a decree of mandatory injunction, in case, defendants succeed to encroach upon and raise construction over the portion of the suit property.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, fact pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint that they are owners in possession of the land in question, which is ancestral one, was disputed, rather, a plea of adverse possession was taken by alleging that a pucca wall had been constructed by the defendants about 30 years back, and the construction of four pucca rooms, a kitchen, and staircase has also been raised, which was not objected by the plaintiffs. Defendants in the written statement also pleaded that when they were raising boundary-wall about 20 years back, plaintiffs never raised any objection, and moreover, property in question is not a part of Khasra No.80.

In the replication filed by plaintiffs, stand taken in written statement by the defendants was denied and facts pleaded in the plaint were reiterated.

4. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.04.2015, framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. By taking note of the entries made in the Jamabandis (Ex.P3 & Ex.P4), and the mutation No.1395 in favour of the plaintiffs and proformadefendants, learned Trial Court held that undisputedly, plaintiffs are recorded as owner in possession of the property. Learned Trial Court further observed that as per Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1887’), said entries in the Jamabandis (Ex.P3 & Ex.P4) carries presumption of truth in favour of the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, no substance has been placed or produced by the defendants to rebut the said entries, recorded in favour of the plaintiffs. Even no material has been produced by the defendants that in what manner they are connected with the land in question. Thus, taking note of entries recorded in the revenue record, plaintiffs were held to be occupying the property in question, as owners in possession. Accordingly, plea of injunction was held to be genuine.

However, plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to seek decree for mandatory injunction, thus, no relief qua that part was granted.

6. After decreetal of the suit by the learned Trial Court, defendants filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, however, said appeal resulted into its dismissal. Findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court in para Nos. 29, 30 & 31, are reproduced here-below:-

“29. However this present is a case of simplicitor suit for permanent injunction and the relief of mandatory injunction was in the alternative. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is not under duty to prove his or her title. He is only supposed to prove his possession with the strengt