IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :12.11.2025 TUHI RAM AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS JAI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ram Avtar Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs–appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.07.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs–appellants were dismissed, as well as by the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2001 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Bhiwani), whereby the first appeal was also dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs–appellants, through their suit for declaration, challenged the existing entries in the jamabandis and sought correction thereof. As per the jamabandi for the year 1964–65, it was the case of the plaintiffs– appellants that they, along with the proforma defendants, have been in cultivating possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors on (chakota) rent of ₹

32/- per annum. However, the defendants, without giving any notice to the appellants-plaintiffs, got the revenue entries changed and altered the rent column ₹

from chakota 32/- per annum to batai tihai. The plaintiffs–appellants accordingly sought a declaration that the entries in the revenue records showing the rent as batai tihai are illegal, void, and not binding upon them.

3. The proforma defendants admitted the claim of the appellants- plaintiffs by filing their written statements. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, however, raised several preliminary objections. They asserted that the father of the plaintiffs, namely Richhpal, had been in cultivating possession of the suit land on batai tihai (i.e., one-third share of the produce) from the very beginning. It was pleaded that during consolidation proceedings, the rent was erroneously recorded as chakota ₹

money at the rate of 2/- per bigha, but after completion of consolidation, the mistake was corrected and the cultivation of the defendants was duly recorded on the basis of batai tihai (1/3rd share of the produce), which, according to them, was the correct entry. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

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

1. Whether the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1964-65 and khasra girdawari entries from 1965 to upto day showing the possession of plaintiffs over the land in dispute of 1/3rd batai are wrong, illegal, null and void and the same are liable to be ignored on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of land in dispute on annual chakota of Rs.32/-, if so its effect? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and maintain the suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD.

8. Relief.”

5. The learned Court of first instance decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs-appellants. Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants, while Issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the defendants. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the first appeal as well. 6. From the evidence led by both parties, it stands admitted and proved that since Kharif 1965, the plaintiffs have been recorded in cultivating possession on rent equivalent to one-third of the produce. However, by filing the present suit in 1990, the plaintiffs–appellants sought correction of the revenue entries on the plea that the suit land was being cultivated by them on payment of chakota money ₹

of 32/- per annum only. The plaintiffs-appellants simple case is that