DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This judgment disposes of two Regular Second Appeals, which arise out of identical facts and raise common questions of law and fact.

2. For convenience, the facts are taken from RSA No.1236 of 1991 titled ‘Ram Nath & Others v. Bhagwan Singh & Others’, which arose out of Civil Suit No.475 of 1989 titled ‘Sheoraj Singh & Others v. Ram Nath & Others'; and Civil Appeal No. 82/13 of 1989 titled 'Sheoraj Singh & Others v. Ram Nath & Others

3. Background : Plaintiffs (who are respondents herein) claimed title and possession to 04 Kanal 16 Marla of agricultural land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The suit land formerly formed part of an undivided joint holding of Shamlat Patti Ram Singh in Village Jatoli, in which both the parties were also the co-sharers. The plaintiffs assert that the joint holding was partitioned by mutation No.3173 dated 25.09.1973, pursuant to which the suit land fell to their share. Defendants were allotted other land out of the joint holding. As per plaintiffs, after partition, defendants continued in possession of that land despite its allotment to the plaintiffs and refused to surrender possession on demand. The plaintiffs therefore sued for possession on the basis of title / partition allotment and consequential reliefs.

4. Defendants (appellants herein) admitted that the plaintiffs were recorded as owners in the post-partition jamabandi but pleaded that they themselves had been tenants of the suit land for over 30 years (since 1956 according to DW-2 Mahipal). They relied heavily on continuous revenue entries in the jamabandi and khasra/girdawari showing them as tenants and the existence of a fixed chakota/lagan. In the alternative, they pleaded ownership by adverse possession. Preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act was also raised.

5. Findings of trial court: Issues material to the controversy were framed and evidence was recorded. The Trial Court accepted the defendants’ case that they were tenants and that the revenue entries were correct and, on that basis, held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The suit was dismissed by judgment of Sub-Judge 2nd Class dated 05.06.1989.

6.1 First Appellate Court’s findings : The learned First Appellate Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence and revenue record, including jamabandis and khasra girdawaris for the period from 1961 to 1988. It noticed that the consistent stand of the defendants was that the alleged tenancy in their favour had been created by the plaintiffs alone and not by the Shamlat Patti, and DW-2 Mahipal specifically asserted that such tenancy commenced in the year 1956.

6.2 However, the pre-partition revenue record depicted the defendants as tenants under Shamlat Patti Ram Singh and not under the plaintiffs. The post-partition jamabandis, on the other hand, recorded the plaintiffs as owners and the defendants as tenants, which was found to be a conventional change occasioned by partition. The Appellate Court further found that there was no reliable evidence of payment of rent either to the plaintiffs or to all co-sharers of the Patti, nor was any material produced to establish a bilateral agreement evidencing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

6.3 The Appellate Court further noticed that the settled practice, reflected in precedent as well as in revenue administration, is that where, at the time of partition, land allotted to one co-sharer is found to be in possession of another, the person remaining in possession is often recorded as a tenant. Such entries are frequently conventional in nature and do not necessarily create a legal tenancy. Relying upon this principle, the Appellate Court held that the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries stood rebutted on the admitted evidence.

6.4 Applying settled law, the Appellate