IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Balwinder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kulwant Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-6884-C-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 87 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-6885-C-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 103 days in refiling the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 103 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

RSA-1986-2023 (O&M)

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed with costs by both the District Courts.

2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the appellant that the learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant on the short ground that the appellant had proved his possession over the suit land by producing voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Jamabandi for the years 1987-88, 1991-92, 1996-97, 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2011-12 (Ex.P-1 to P-6) and Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P-7 to P-9). Thus, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as Gair Marusi tenant for last more than 25 years is proved. Further the defendants have failed to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts have not appreciated that from the Jamabandi for the years 1987-88, 1991-92, 1996-97, 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2011-12 (Ex.P-1 to P-6) and Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P-7 to P-9) it is clear that appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi tenant on payment of rent and hence entitled to protect his possession unless he is ejected by the owner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.

4. It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the District Courts be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

6. No doubt, the appellant had produced revenue record as referred to hereinabove; and further there is no doubt that perusal of these documents show that plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land as gair marusi on the payment of rent. However, a complete perusal of the record further reveals that defendants have proved the said entries to be incorrect. Defendants have placed on record a copy of the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade Ex.D5; whereby the said entries were ordered to be corrected. Order dated 13.08.2014 was further upheld in appeal filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 27.03.2015 Ex.D4 passed by Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Batala. Therefore, perusal of Ex.D4 and D5 clearly prove that name of the plaintiff was wrongly incorporated in the revenue record and correction thereof was directed; whereupon correct entries were made in the names of defendants No.2 and 3.

7. No doubt, there is a presumption of truth attached to Jamabandi. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. In the present case, presumption stood rebutted in the order dated Ex.D5 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Ex.D4 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Batala. In any event, entries in Revenue Record do not