This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and de cree dated 22-02-1977, passed by Sec ond Additional District Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1973, aris ing out of original suit no. 59 of 1972.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parues.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs / appellants instituted a suit for permanent injunction, restrain ing the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs/ appellants over the land of Plots No. 24/2a, 24/2b, 24/3ab, 24/4, 25/1, 25/2, 26/1, 26/2, 27/1, 27/2, 28ab, 29/1, 29/2, 30, 31, 32/1, 32/2ab, 32/3, 33/1, 33/2, 33/3ab, 34, 35/1, 35/2, 35/ 3a, 35/3b, 36ab, & 37/2b, measuring 146 Bigha 12 Biswa in village Narpatpur (Bagatpur), Pargana Bhabar Kota, Tehsil Kaladhunti, District Nainital. The plain tiffs/appellants case is that, they were in continuous cultivatory possession of the aforesaid plots for eight years before institution of suit and it is pleaded by them that they have been recorded as Adivasi over the land after enforcement of U. P Zaminadari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant trying to take forcible possession of the aforesaid land, which gave cause of action to the plaintiffs to institute this suit for injunc tion.

4. The defendant/respondent Jamail Singh contested the suit by filing a writ ten statement whereby the contents of the plaint were denied. It is pleaded by the defendant that entry as Adivasi in favour of plaintiffs was made wrongly in the fasli year of 1374 (calendar year 1967), in favour of the plaintiffs. Said entry was a forged one. It is further pleaded that in fact defendant is in cultivatory possession of the land in suit. It is alleged by the defendant that plain tiffs have no concern over the land in question.

5. Learned trial court framed fol lowing issues on the basis of the plead ings of the parties :

(i) whether the plaintiffs are in pos session over the land in suit ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have le gally acquired rights of Adivasi over the land in suit?

(iii) To what relief, if any, the plain tiffs are entitled ?

(iv) Whether the suit is not maintain able ?

(v) Whether the entries in the name of the plaintiffs in Khasra for the-year 1374 fasli was forged and not in accordance with law ? If so, its effect ?

The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the entry in the Khasra for the year 1374 fasli was a forged one. It did not find cultivatory possession of the plain tiffs over the land in suit and the suit was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 31-8-1973. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1973) before the lower appellate court. After hearing the parties, the same was also dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 22-2-1977. Hence, this second appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court in the year 1977. The appeal was admitted by the said High Court vide its order dated 26-9-1977. The appeal is transferred to this Court under Section 35 of U. P Reor ganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. No substantial question of law appears to have been framed by the Allahabad High Court at the time of admission. However, the following substantial ques tion of law arises for consideration by this Court in this second appeal on which the parties made their submissions before this Court-

Whether the entries made in the rev enue record, which had attained final ity under Section 44 of U. P Land Rev enue Act, 1901, can be ignored by the Civil Court in a suit for injunction, while examining the fact relating to possession of a party to the suit.

6. Answer to substantial question of Law : Section 44 of U. P Land Revenue Act, 1901 reads as under :

"44. Presumption as to entries In the annual register,- All entries in the annual register shall, until con trary is proved be presumed to be true. "

The aforesaid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document