A party cannot assert possession based on revenue entries that have been officially corrected by competent authority, especially when the party previously admitted the correctness of said correction before the revenue tribunal.

*******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants are in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent injunction although dismissed by the learned Trial Court, has been decreed by the learned First Appellate Court

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents herein had filed the instant Civil Suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint. It was pleaded that plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property measuring 23K-9M as described in the plaint. It was contended that a wrong entry was existing in the revenue record in the name of defendants No.1 to 3 showing them to be in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the erstwhile owners had filed 2 applications for correction of Khasra Girdawari before the Revenue Court. Vide order dated 12.01.2018, correction was made in Khasra Girdawari in favour of the erstwhile owners by virtue of Rapat Nos. 348 and 349. Defendants had also filed Appeals before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Collector, Siwani, which were dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2019. It was contended that defendants have no concern with the suit land however, with evil eye they are threatening to damage the crops standing on the land of the plaintiffs. On 06.07.2018, defendants had tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. However, they have failed. In this regard, a DDR No. 27 dated 06.07.2018 was registered against the defendants. Despite that, they continued threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Consequentially, plaintiffs have filed instant civil suit on 06.04.2019.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siwani, District Bhiwani had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023 on the ground that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 brought on record by the plaintiffs as Ex.P1, names of defendants No.1 and 2 have been shown in the cultivation column. It was further noticed that as per the Mutations Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs, and as per Jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 Ex.P4, plaintiffs have been shown in cultivating possession. It was further seen that plaintiffs themselves have placed on record latest Khasra Girdawari for the year 2018-2019 Ex.P6 in which possession of defendants No.1 and 2 has been shown. Consequentially as Khasra Girdawari is a document of possession, possession of the defendants over the suit property was established and, therefore, suit was dismissed. It was further held that as per the judgment dated 12.02.2013 Ex.D1 rendered in a suit filed by one Ram Narayan against the defendant Rajbir et cetera, it was found by the Civil Court that they/defendant No.3 was in cultivating possession of the suit land. It was accordingly held that once defendants were shown to be in cultivating possession of suit land by a Civil Court then plaintiffs have to prove on case file that defendants were evicted from the suit property by a competent authority or Court. However, no document was brought on case file by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

4. Plaintiffs had filed Civil Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment and decree date