JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Defendants of the case are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, in as much as Civil suit No.476 of 2005/2009 filed by plaintiffs Barkha Ram etc. (respondents herein) for declaration and possession of the suit land was decreed by the trial Court of learned Civil Judge (junior Division), Kurukshetra on 28.03.2011. Civil Appeal No.337 of 2013 filed by the defendants (appellants herein) was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra on 03.03.2014.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3.1 Subject-matter of the dispute is 32 Kanal 08 Marla of land situated in Revenue Estate of Village Yara, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra detailed in para No.l of the plaint (hereinafter referred as the 'suit land').

3.2 According to plaintiffs, they along with other co-sharers are owners of the suit land as per the entries in the revenue record. Defendants have no concern with the suit land but names of defendant Nos.l to 4; and predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.5 to 10 i.e. Puran (since deceased) are being wrongly reflected in para No.4 of the Jamabandi as Kabjan, whereas these defendants are actually not the owner of the suit land. It is plaintiffs, who are exclusive owner being co-sharers in the suit land. The name of defendant No.11 is recorded in the revenue record to be in cultivating possession of the suit land.

3.3 Plaintiffs have challenged the entries in the revenue record showing the name of defendant Nos.l to 10 as Kabjan of the suit land to be illegal and void by submitting that these defendants were never inducted nor handed over the possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs. It is contended that as per the legal position, the person in possession is shown in column No.5 of the Jamabandi and therefore, the names of defendant Nos.l to 10 as Kabjan in column No.4 of the Jamabandi are absolutely wrong. Plaintiffs never inducted defendant No.11 as their tenant on the suit land nor defendant No.11 ever paid any Rent, Batai or Chakota to the plaintiffs and therefore, the entry of defendant No.11 to be in possession of suit property as Gair Morusi is also illegal and void.

3.4 Asserting that entries in revenue record are wrong and that plaintiffs are the actual owner of the suit land, they brought the suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that entries in Jamabandi showing defendant Nos.l to 10 as Kabjan of the suit property are null, illegal void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and so deserve to be deleted. Plaintiffs also seek declaration that the defendants are trespassers over the suit property and as such, decree for possession of the suit land is also prayed for by directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

4.1 In written statement filed by defendant Nos.l to 10 (appellants herein), they raised various preliminary objections, the material being that suit is barred by limitation, inasmuch as suit for declaration can be filed within three years but plaintiffs have changed the entries of the revenue record after more than 100 years and as such, the suit is barred by limitation.

4.2 These defendants further pleaded that plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem Court fee to claim any right, title or possession over the suit property, inasmuch as defendant Nos.l to 10 had sold the land measuring 30 Kanal 5 Marla for consideration of Rs.20,25,000/- vide sale deed dated 01.05.2006 to defendant Nos.11 (i to v), regarding which mutation No.4185 was entered. Another part of suit land measuring 2 Kanal 3 Marla was sold for consideration for Rs.1,53,000/- vide sale deed dated 27.06.2005, regarding which mutation No.4207 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.11 (through his legal heirs). Defendants claimed th