Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4557-2009 (O&M)
212 RSA-4557-2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.04.2026
Purushottam Dass ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Bishna and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Keshav Pratap Singh, Nitin Sansanwal
For the Respondents: Surinder Gandhi
Revenue records hold a rebuttable presumption of truth; therefore, when such records consistently identify individuals as tenants, a party contesting this position must provide specific evidence to rebut the entries, irrespective of the absence of individual rent receipts.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Sufficiency of evidence - Revenue records - Entries in revenue records carry presumption of truth - Burden of proof to rebut such entries lies on the party challenging them - Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or illegal. (Paras 16, 17)
(B) Pre-emption - Suit for possession - Landlord-tenant relationship - Proof of tenancy - Revenue records and recitals in sale deeds establish possession of tenants - Non-production of individual rent receipts is not fatal to the claim when revenue records clearly substantiate the cultivation status and payment terms. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption concerning agricultural land, alleging they were in cultivating possession as tenants and the sale to the defendant was conducted to defeat their pre-emption rights. The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The defendant challenged this in a second appeal, arguing that tenancy was not proved due to lack of rent receipts.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the revenue record (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) provides conclusive evidence of tenancy. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached to these records. Furthermore, the sale deed itself contained a recital acknowledging the tenants' possession. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were affirmed.
Issues: Whether the respondents were in possession of the suit land as tenants, and whether the absence of rent receipts invalidates a claim of tenancy in a suit for pre-emption.
Ratio Decidendi: Entries in the revenue record carry a rebuttable presumption of truth, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the contesting party, such records are sufficient to establish status as tenants under the law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for possession by way of pre-emption, has been decreed by both the District Courts.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. It was pleaded in the plaint that the agricultural land measuring 53K-7M/suit land was in the co-ownership of defendants No.2 ad 3. Defendants No.2 and 3 had sold the suit land to defendant No1. for sale consideration of Rs.1 lac vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.06.2001. It was alleged that in order to defeat the pre-emption right of the plaintiff, sale consideration of Rs.1,93,393.75 was wrongly got recorded in place of Rs.1 lac. Before making sale, defendants No.2 and 3 did not issue any notice to the plaintiffs. It was stated that plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of suit land as tenants Gair Morusi on “Batai Tihai” under defendants No.2 and 3 and now they are in possession as gair morusi tenants under defendant No.1. Recital to this effect has also been made in the Sale Deed. It was alleged that defendant No.1 is a stranger and plaintiffs have prior right to pre-empt the sale in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff had requested defendant No.1 repeatedly to admit their claim however, to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 03.08.2001.
Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siwani, Camp at Bhiwani had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2006 in the following manner: -
“As a sequel to my findings on all issues above, present suit for possession by way of pre-emption succeeds and is hereby decreed, as prayed for subject to plaintiffs depositing a sum Rs.1,54,714.75 (Rs.1,93,393.75 Rs.38,679.00 Zare Panjam) in court within one month from today. Plaintiffs shall also be entitled to costs of the suit through out. Decree sheet be prepared and file to the record room, after due be consigned compliance.”
The Civil Appeal filed by defendant No.1 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2009. Hence, the present second appeal by defendant No.1.
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 that learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that plaintiffs had failed to prove the payment of batai tihai. It is submitted that respondents have not placed on record any receipt to show any payment of rent to the defendants No.2 and 3. It is contended that for proving tenancy, payment of rent is a must. As such, plaintiffs were unable to establish their right of pre-emption.
It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit seeking “possession” by way of pre-emption. It is contended that the very fact that the plaintiffs have made prayer for possession, would imply that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. As such, plaintiffs have been unable to establish their pre-emptory right; and suit has, therefore, been wrongly decreed.
It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that plaintiffs had produced voluminous revenue record to prove their possession over the suit property as tenants. The said revenue record in the form of Jamabandi was rebuttable however, no evidence in rebuttal was led by defendant No.1. Even khasra girdawari was brought on record by the plaintiffs to prove their possession as tenants over the suit property. Moreover, the concurrent findings of fact have been returned by both the District
