Jurisdiction of civil courts extends to rectification of erroneous revenue entries reflecting ownership contrary to established decrees.

JUDGMENT : 

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellant, being profoundly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 4th September, 1998, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 11th March, 1997, whereby the meticulously reasoned judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1997, delivered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, in Civil Suit No. 521 of 2nd November, 1995, was erroneously reversed, respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'RSA'), seeking restoration of the decree of the learned Trial Court and redress of the substantial grievance suffered by the appellant.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are demonstrably perverse, being founded upon grave errors of law and a palpably erroneous appreciation of the evidence on record, thereby resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. In view of the foregoing, the same warrants urgent interference by this Court for setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. The foundational facts giving rise to the present proceedings may be delineated thus: the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the owner of a 2/3rd share in land measuring 249 Kanals and 2 Marlas, situated in village Chanarthal, as fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint. The respondent-defendant, Lal Singh, who is the appellant's nephew, filed a civil suit claiming a 1/6th share in the same land by way of a family settlement. Civil Suit No. 32 of 22nd March, 1986 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16th May, 1984. Subsequently, while sanctioning mutation, the Halqua Patwari recorded 1/6th share of the entire land in favour of the respondent-defendant, thereby leaving the appellant-plaintiff with only a ^1/2 share. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Talwandi Sabo, corrected the order to reflect that the respondent-defendant was entitled to only a 1/9th share. However, while preparing the Jamabandi, the respondent-defendant was once again incorrectly shown as owner of a 1/6th share. The appellant-plaintiff contends that these erroneous entries are not binding upon him.

3. The respondent/defendant entered appearance and contested the suit in its entirety, contending that the entries recorded in the revenue records were accurate, valid, and faithfully reflected the true factual position of the parties. Apart from raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, the respondent/defendant specifically denied all material averments made by the appellant-plaintiff on merits, asserting that no cause of action existed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the suit was both legally untenable and wholly devoid of merit, and, in consequence, the respondent/defendant prayed that the same be dismissed in its entirety, together with exemplary costs.

4. The appellant/plaintiff filed a replication, in which all material allegations set forth in the plaint were reiterated and emphatically reaffirmed, while specifically traversing and refuting the various pleas, contentions, and defenses advanced by the respondents in their written statement. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions tendered by both parties, this Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination, so as to thoroughly and judiciously adjudicate the competing claims and defenses raised in the present dispute, which are delineated hereunder:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of 5/9 share in the suit land? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the decree and judgment passed in Civil suit No.32 of 22-3-1994 (in fact it is 22.3.1984 decided on 16.5.1984) the plaintiff suffered a decree of 1/9 share? OPP

3. If issue No.2 is proved whether the mutation No.3413 dated 5-101985 re