IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR NO.2652 OF 2010

DATE OF DECISION : 18

th OCTOBER, 2012

Sher Singh & another

…. Petitioners

Versus

Dadri Education Society Dadri & others

…. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * * *

Present :

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

* * * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by Sher Singh (one of the legal representatives of Karan

Singh-plaintiff No.1) and Sarti-plaintiff No.3 to assail order dated

03.04.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned trial Court thereby allowing

application moved by respondent No.2-Jogi Ram (wrongly mentioned as

Chandgi Ram in the heading and body of the revision petition) for

impleading him as party to application for preparation of final decree of

partition.

Suit was filed by plaintiff-Karan Singh and Chandgi Ram sons

and Sarti daughter of Chunni Lal against Dadri Education Society, Dadri as

CR NO.2652 OF 2010

- 2 -

contesting defendant No.1. Preliminary decree of partition was passed vide

judgment dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure P-1) holding the suit land measuring

10 kanals 14 marlas to be joint land and holding that plaintiffs have 32/214

share in the said land whereas defendant NO.1 has the remaining 182/214

share therein. Plaintiffs thereafter filed application for preparation of final

decree. During pendency thereof, Jogi Ram respondent No.2 moved

application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

impleading him as party alleging that he had purchased 100 square yards

plot out of the suit land from plaintiffs No.2 and 3 through plaintiff No.1 as

their attorney vide sale deed dated 11.10.1982 i.e. long before the institution

of the partition suit and the land purchased by him is part of khasra No.768

i.e. part of the suit land although khasra number has not been mentioned in

the sale deed. Plaintiffs had also sold land to many other persons. Details

of five sale deeds and their vendees were also given in the application.

Accordingly Jogi Ram claimed to be necessary party to the lis.

Plaintiffs resisted the application and denied factum of sale of

100 square yards plot to respondent No.2-Jogi Ram. The sale deed was

pleaded to be result of fraud and fabrication. It was also pleaded that the

said sale deed does not pertain to any part of the suit land.

Learned trial Court vide order Annexure P-2 allowed the

application of Jogi Ram for impleading him as contesting respondent No.2.

The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

CR NO.2652 OF 2010

- 3 -

Learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently and

repeatedly emphasized and over emphasized that in the revenue record,

respondent No.2 has not been reflected as cosharer in the suit land and,

therefore, he could not be ordered to be impleaded as party to the lis. The

contention is completely misplaced and misconceived. Revenue record is

not conclusive and final proof of ownership or coshrership of land.

Revenue record does have evidentiary value. Entries in jabamabandi also

have presumption of correctness. However, even the said presumption is

rebutable. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that entries in revenue

record are conclusive and final. Consequently merely because respondent

No.2 is not reflected as cosharer in the suit land in revenue record, it cannot

be held that he is not cosharer therein. On the contrary, the questions

whether respondent No.2 has purchased the alleged plot from plaintiffs

No.2 and 3 through plaintiff No.1 as attorney by a valid sale deed and

whether the said plot is part of the suit land or not, can be adjudicated upon

only after respondent No.2