JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs, has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2015; and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2018.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial court i.e. The appellants are the plaintiffs'; and the respondents are the defendants'.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the occupying tenants of the suit property situated at Narnaul as fully detailed in plaint. Prior to them, their forefathers had come in the exclusive ownership and possession over the estate. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs namely Bhagwana had occupied the estate as occupancy tenant since the past 64 years prior to filing of the suit; and due to their long-standing possession over the estate, they had acquired the occupancy and all the other appurtenant rights on account of being the occupancy tenants. It is further pleaded that after the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs i.e. Sh. Bhagwana, it is the plaintiffs who, being the successor-in-interest had stepped into his shoes. However, the revenue entries still reflect the names of the defendants in the column of ownership. As such, the said incorrect entries in the revenue record require to be rectified. The defendants, being the powerful people, are bent upon to alienate the suit estate. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiffs, and prior to them the ancestors of the plaintiffs, have been in the ceaseless, continual and exclusive possession over the suit estate; rectification of the existing revenue records as the existing revenue records still reflect the names of the defendants in the column of ownership; and as an auxiliary relief, the plaintiffs prayed for the perpetual injunction injuncting the defendants from invading their incessant possession over the suit property.

4. Upon notice, the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit on numerous grounds inter alia stating that originally the suit land was owned and possessed by the Muslim evacuees and the same was declared as evacuee land by the Government of India under the administration of Evacuee Property Act and later on same was allotted to Sh. Brij Lal grand father of defendants no.1 and 2 and maternal grand father of defendants no.3 to 6 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and physical possession was handed over to Brij Lal by revenue authorities. Bhagwana son of Deda was inducted as tenant at will by predecessor in interest of defendant on payment of 1/3rd produce as rent; that the plaintiffs had remained in occupation of the suit estate as tenants at Will; and that status of the plaintiffs had also come to an end w.e.f. 22.12.2010 vide the ejectment decree passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction; whereafter the plaintiffs had been unauthorizedly occupying the suit estate. It was further asserted that as such, neither the said Bhagwana i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and after his demise, nor the plaintiffs were ever conferred with the status of occupancy tenants over the land in dispute; and that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs purely to harass the defendants. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

i). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owner in possession over the suit land and the revenue entries in this reg