R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010

1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010

Date of decision: 28.2.2011

Jit Ram and others

......Appellants

Versus

Partap Singh and others

.......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate,

for the appellants.

****

SABINA, J.

Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration.

The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that earlier the suit

land was Barani and was, thus, uncultivable as there was no source

of irrigation. The land was lying uneven and was covered with wild

bushes. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had let out

the suit land for cultivation to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and Jati

without payment of rent. Plaintiff No.1 exclusively started improving

the land measuring 6 kanals 18 marlas bearing khasra No.291//5(6-

18). Plaintiff No.2 and Jati predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.3

R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010

2

to 6 jointly started making improvement in the land measuring 22

kanals 1 marla bearing khasra No. 251//22 (7-14) and khasra

No.292//1 (7-0), 2 (7-7). The plaintiffs had made the land cultivable.

However, the entries in the jamabandi were changed in the year

1970-71 and it was mentioned therein that the rent was Batai Tihai

(1/3^rd of produce). Plaintiffs had no information qua the said change

of entry in the revenue record. The said entries in the revenue

record were wrong.

Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they

were owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs were cultivating the suit

land on payment of 1/3rd batai. It was denied that the land had been

let out to the plaintiffs without any payment of rent etc.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of

the suit land to the extent of their share, as alleged in the

headnote of the plaint as Gair Maurusi bila lagan under

the defendants/land owners? OPP.

2. Whether the entries of revenue records in column

No.9 relating to rent payable by the plaintiffs showing as

Batai Tihai in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and

onward are liable to be corrected being incorrect and

illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in

the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act

and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010

3

5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation ? OPP

6. Relief.”

The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide

judgment and decree dated 14.5.2007. Aggrieved by the same,

plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide

judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010 passed by Additional District

Judge (Fast Track) Court, Sirsa. Hence, the present appeal by the

plaintiffs.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of

the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and

deserves dismissal.

Admittedly, the defendants are the owner of the suit land.

As per entry in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71, it has been

mentioned that the rent was 1/3rd batai. Similar entries qua rent

continue in the later jamabandis. A presumption of truth is attached

to the entries in jamabandi. The plaintiffs had, however, failed to

rebut the said presumption. The entry in the jamabandi qua rent

was incorporated for the first time in the year 1970, whereas, the

plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 2005 challenging the said

change of entry. In these circumstances, the Courts below had

rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular

second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(SABINA)

JUDGE

February 28, 2011

R.S.A.No. 2845 of 2010

4

anita