Erroneous revenue entries are void ab initio, preserving joint possession rights among co-owners until formal partition occurs.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 138/98/97 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. In the afore suit, the plaintiffs claimed the making of hereinafter extracted relief(s), vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, and, against the defendants:

“It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the above submissions, it be declared that the plaintiffs are also joint owners in possession of the suit land qua the share of Smt. Purnu deceased, which their predecessor-in-interest had inherited vide mutation No. 424, dated 23.12.1977 and which has been wrongly recorded in the exclusive name of Moti Ram deceased while preparing the jamabandi for the year1981-82 and repeated in the subsequent jamabandies, which entries are totally wrong, illegal, incorrect, null and void and liable to be struck off and corrected and plaintiffs are entitled for the allotment of land to them during consolidation of holdings which their predecessor-in-interests had inherited from Smt. Purnu Devi deceased and wrongly allotted to Moti Ram or defendant and their joint possession thereof be confirmed and defendant be restrained from interfering therein, and a decree to the above effect with costs of the suit, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, and/or any other relief, warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case, under consideration, be granted and justice be done.”

2. The trial Judge, through his decision made, on 05.11.2003, upon the Civil Suit (supra), decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

3. The aggrieved defendant(s) carried thereagainst Civil Appeal bearing No. 24/2004, 136/2005, before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court, through its decision made, on 28.07.2008, upon the Civil Appeal (supra), dismissed the appeal, and, obviously affirmed and maintained the judgment and decree, as became pronounced earlier by the learned trial Court.

4. The defendant, becoming aggrieved from the afore drawn concurrent verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, hence instituted Regular Second Appeal, bearing No. RSA No. 478 of 2008, before this Court.

5. When the afore Regular Second Appeal, came before this Court on 18.09.2008, it came to be admitted on substantial questions of law No. 1 and 3, occurring at page No. 5 of the paperbook, substantial questions of law whereof become extracted hereinafter:

“1. Whether both the Courts below have misread misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially documents Ext. DA order dated 22.08.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, document Ext. DW-3/A application for correction of revenue entries which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct as they have knowledge about revenue entries when the filed the application for correction of revenue entries which was dismissed on 22.08.1992?

6. The suit property became inherited, by the four sons of Ganga Ram, namely, Dila Ram, Sunder Lal, Mastu Ram and Moti Ram. Mutation No. 424, become attested on demise of deceased Purnu Devi. The afore order of mutation became attested on 23.12.1977. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 6, are the legal heirs of Dila Ram, whereas, plaintiffs No. 7 and 8, are the legal heirs of Sunder Lal. Moreover, proforma defendants No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of Mastu Ram deceased. The defendant is the legal heir of deceased Moti Ram. However, the Patwari Halka concerned,