IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revenue entries are presumed to be true, unless rebutted and the later entry prevails.
(2) Concurrent finding of facts by trial court and the first appellate court cannot be interfered in second appeal unless perverse.

Sandeep Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as the ‘plaintiff’), filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he be declared in exclusive possession of the land comprised in Khata No.29, Khatauni No.65, Khasra No.479, measuring 0-01-11 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated in Mohal Dohag, Mauza Gumber, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) as co-sharer and he is entitled to remain in exclusive possession, the entries to the contrary be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his exclusive possession over the suit land or from raising construction. Plaintiff also claimed a decree for mandatory injunction to remove the foundation from the suit land.

3. It is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that ½ of land comprised in Khasra No.479, measuring 6 marlas, was owned by Kishanu and others and remaining ½ share was owned by Dilu, but total land of said Khasra No.479 was recorded in possession of original plaintiff, Sant Ram, as a tenant without payment of rent with the consent of aforesaid owners. It is further averred by the plaintiff that during the consolidation operation, the land comprised in Khasra No.479 (old Khasra No.255) was put in the share of Dilu and the same was recorded in the ownership of Dilu, but the possession of the same remained to be recorded in exclusive possession of original plaintiff Sant Ram. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on the death of Dilu, his sons and one daughter succeeded him in equal shares to the said land, but Sant Ram remained in possession of the same as a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share and as a tenant to the extent of 3/4th share. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that Smt.Chinti Devi daughter of Dilu gifted her 1/4th share in favour of Sant Ram, as a result of which Sant Ram became a co-sharer to the extent of ½ share over the said land comprised in Khasra No.255, but he remained in possession as a tenant over the remaining ½ share of the suit land. It is further averred that the suit land was a part of old Khasra No.255, which is recorded in possession of Sant Ram as a co-sharer. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant purchased ½ share of the suit land from Piar Chand son of Bhagat Ram and Jagdish, as a result of which the defendant became co-sharer with the plaintiff to the extent of ½ share in the suit land, but defendant never came in possession over any portion of the suit land. To the contrary, Sant Ram, original plaintiff, continued to be in exclusive possession over whole of the suit land as a co-sharer to the extent of ½ share and as a tenant to the extent of remaining ½ share. It is further claimed that on the death of original plaintiff Sant Ram, his sons and widow, who were substituted as legal representatives of Sant Ram, succeeded to the share of Sant Ram in the suit land as well as to his tenancy rights and, as such, they are entitled to remain in exclusive possession and the entries showing the suit land in joint possession of all the co-sharers are wrong, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that under the garb of said wrong entries, the defendant dug out and laid foundation of a shop in the suit land and in his absence collected construction material and completed the construction during the pendency of the suit. In the alternative, i