Revenue records carry a rebuttable statutory presumption of truth regarding ownership and possession. The burden of proof rests on the party challenging these entries to provide evidence of fraud or procedural irregularity; absent such proof, the court must uphold the validity of the established documents as evidence of title.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

At the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard.

2. In this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assail is made to the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Court of Eighth Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.10-A/2005 whereby granting decree of declaration and mandatory injunction, the trial Court had decreed the suit in the plaintiffs’ favour.

3. As per facts of the case, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming declaration and mandatory injunction. As per the plaint averments, the suit land ad-measuring 41.52 acres, situates at Village Goura, PH No.40, Revenue Survey No.234, Tahsil Hujur, District Bhopal and is being owned and possessed by the plaintiffs which according to them is their ancestral property.

(3.1) According to the plaintiffs, some part of the said land was in the shape of Pathar whereas in the remaining part, they are doing cultivation. According to the plaintiffs, over the said land, a pucca house and ‘Well’ are also situated.

(3.2) As per the plaintiffs, their predecessor Mohanlal, whose name is shown to be a bhumiswami in the revenue records, died in the year 1953 and thereafter, his two sons namely Ramdayal and Sitaram came in possession over the land in question. Although, after the death of Mohanlal, one of his sons namely Sitaram started living in his maternal home and thereafter, some part of land was being cultivated by Ramdayal whereas other was given on batiya, but after the death of Ramdayal and Sitaram, the land was being taken care of and cultivated by Shingar Bai.

(3.3) As per the plaintiffs, neither the suit land was sold; acquired by the State Government nor it was vested in any of the schemes or policies of the State Government. In the year 2000-01, Shingar Bai had given the suit land to Yunus Khan on batiya, who later on, tried to grab the said land and thereafter, Shingar Bai filed a suit which, on 26.01.2005, got withdrawn as the parties had settled their grievances.

(3.4) Pursuant to the dispute arose between Shingar Bai and Yunus Khan, Shingar Bai had obtained the revenue records of the suit land from 1939 till 2002-03 and then only, she got the information that the suit land was shown to be a land of Mohanlal s/o Kashiram and after his death in the year 1953, the said land was recorded in the name of his legal heirs i.e. her two brothers and plaintiff herself.

(3.5) As per the plaint averments, in the year 1954, the suit land was shown to be in two khasra numbers. Although, in one khasra number, the names of plaintiff and her two brothers were recorded but the other khasra number was kept vacant and that information was not there in the knowledge of the plaintiffs for the reason that since the suit land was recorded as a Pathar land and, therefore, it was free from any outstanding towards the land revenue and as such, no communication was made in this regard between the plaintiffs and revenue authorities and thereafter, revenue records were not being properly maintained and in fact, the names of the plaintiffs from the column of ownership ‘swamitwa’ got removed. However, according to the plaintiffs, they are still in possession over the suit land.

(3.6) According to the plaintiffs, even in the year 2000, their possession over the land in question could not be recorded and thereafter, under some