Ownership must be established through registered title documents and cannot solely rely on oral assertions or revenue entries.

Parmod Goyal, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant whose suit for declaration as well as appeal preferred by him were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.1990 and judgment and decree dated 24.07.1993, passed by learned Sub Judge, First Class, Phul and learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda respectively.

2. Plaintiff in his suit for declaration claimed himself to be owner in possession of suit land. It was asserted that Sampuran Singh son of Narain Singh was earlier in possession of suit land as mortgagee. He died 11/12 years back. Plaintiff had got the suit land redeemed in the year 1962-1963 and since then, he has become owner in possession of the suit land. He also claimed that his possession over the suit land since 1962-1963 is open and hostile to the knowledge of Sampuran Singh and defendants, thereby he has become owner of land in the suit. He also claimed that defendants have forfeited their right to redeem the suit land with lapse of time and he be declared owner in possession of suit land and defendants be restrained from taking benefit of wrong revenue entries, wherein they are referred as mortgagee to dispossess the plaintiff.

3. Defendants No.1, 2, 6 & 7 contested the suit, filed detailed written statement, denied the case of plaintiff and claimed that suit land was mortgaged to Sampuran Singh, which was never redeemed and defendants are in possession of suit land being mortgagee. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?

OPP.

3. Relief.

5. In the present case, ownership of plaintiff only on the basis of entries in jamabandi has not been accepted by the Courts below.

6. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that both the Courts below have erred in not accepting the claim of ownership on the basis of Exhibits P3 to P5 i.e. Jamabandis, wherein plaintiff has been recorded as owner of property.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. I find the arguments raised on behalf of appellant to be fallacious. The revenue entries are not conclusive proof of ownership. Ownership has to be proved on the basis of documents of title. Admittedly, plaintiff is not claiming inheritance or succession through original owner, rather plaintiff is claiming that he had purchased suit land 26/27 years back, which comes to year 1962-1963 after paying the mortgage amount of Rs.4,600/- from one Sher Singh son of Hari Singh. Plaintiff/appellant has further admitted that no sale deed was ever executed by the vendors and therefore, no sale deed was placed on record. In view of the fact that plaintiff himself is asserting that no sale deed was executed by the vendor, his claim of ownership only on the basis of his oral assertions and entries in jamabandi was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. There is no document title in favour of plaintiff/appellant. The sale deed was compulsorily registrable. Neither sale deed was executed nor it was got registered. The oral sale only on the basis of assertions of plaintiff cannot be accepted and has rightly been rejected by the Courts below in absence of any reliable evidence. Admittedly, the suit property was owned by Bhuda mother of Sher Singh. However, no evidence is available to conclude that Bhuda was inherited by Sher Singh alone. In absence of LR’s of Bhuda and any evidence that Sher Singh ever became owner, sale by him on basis of oral assertions cannot be accepted. The role of revenue entries is a li