Revenue records carry a presumption of correctness, and mere allegations are insufficient to rebut this presumption; substantial evidence is required to prove ownership claims.

For the Respondenots : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Anita Muskan, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The Appellants, before this Court by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), have assailed the judgement and decree dated 23-08-2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 38-J/XIII/2021/2018, affirming the judgement and decree dated 18-12-2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Junior division), Jawali, District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 181/2007.

2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned trial Court and in the impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are in possession of the suit

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

land as joint owners and that the defendants or their predecessor-

in-interest, Fangan Ram, had no right, title, or interest thereinP. They further sought a declaration that the revenue entries in favour of the defendants' predecessor, showing him as a tenant on Galla Batai, were illegal, null, and void, having been incorporated without consent and not in accordance with law. The plaintiffs also challenged Mutation No. 110, attested on 11.06.1991, which conferred proprietary rights upon tFangan Ram, and Mutation No. 263, dated 27.09.1999, which showed the defendants as owners, alleging these were sanctioned without opportunity of hearing and were illegal.

3. Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restrainin g the defendants from interfering in the suit land with an alternate prayer for possession were also made. The plaintiffs pleaded to be owners in possession of the land, specifically Khata No. 52, Khatauni No. 136 min, Khasra Nos. 1128 & 1131, measuring 0-68-53 Hms in Mauza Harnota Khas, Tehsil Jawali District Kangra and denied any tenancy relationship, alleging the defendants' predecessor was never inducted as a tenant and that the entries were a result of connivance. The cause of action was stated to have arisen in July 2007 when threats were made and the plaintiffs discovered the allegedly wrong entries.

4. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections on maintainability, estoppel, and limitation, and pleaded on merits that Fangan Ram was inducted as a tenant on Galla Batai prior to 1970, acquired ownership rights on the appointed dPay of

04.10.1975 by operation of law, and that the mutations were rightly sanctioned. They denied the plaintiffs' ownership and possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on

10.09.2009:

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration, as claimed? OPP 2. Whether mutation No. 110 attested and nd sanctioned by A.C. 2 Grade dated 11.06.1991 is wrong, illegal, null & void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether entries showing Fangan Ram son of Maru as tenant in the revenue record are illegal, wrong, null & void? OPP.

4. Whether mutation No. 263 dated 27.09.1999 attested in favour of the defendants showing them owners in possession of the suit land, is wrong, illegal, null & void? OPP. 5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands? OPD.

7. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 8. W