[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajbir And Others vs Balwan And Others on 18 April, 2026

                     RSA-1085-2025 (O&M)                                              1 of 10


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     111                                    RSA-1085-2025 (O&M)
                                                            Date of decision: 18.04.2026

                     Rajbir and others                                          ...Appellant(s)

                                                           Vs.

                     Balwan and others                                          ...Respondent(s)

                     CORAM:          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

                     Present:-       Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with
                                     Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

                                           *******

                     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

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 2 of 10

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

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 3 of 10

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 dated 30.01.2025. Hence,

the present second appeal by the defendants.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants that it is proven on record that the defendants are in

possession of the suit property since 1986. Therefore, learned Trial Court

has correctly recorded that defendants are in cultivating possession as

tenant gair marusi over the suit land; and that plaintiffs have failed to

produce any document to prove that defendants were ever evicted from

the suit land by any competent authority or Court of law. No lawful

eviction of the appellants has been ordered by any Court of law.

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 4 of 10

Therefore, the plaintiffs can seek eviction of the appellants from the suit

property only in accordance with law. As such, given the admitted

possession of the appellants over the suit property, suit of the plaintiffs

could not have been decreed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submits

that the learned Additional District Judge while setting aside well-

reasoned and sound judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

ignoring the evidence i.e. Ex.D-1 Judgment dated 12.02.2013 passed in

Civil Suit no. 55 of 2010 in which it was held that Rajbir etc.

(Defendants/appellants) were admittedly in the cultivating possession of

the suit land; and Ex.D15 to Ex. D-20 i.e. Khasra Girdawaris since 1986,

from the perusal of the same it is evident that earlier mother of the

defendants was in the possession of the suit land and after her death the

defendants came in possession of the suit land. It has further been

wrongly held that neither there was any pleading nor any evidence led by

the defendants that earlier Jaimal was paying how much rent to the

owner Ganesh and since when the tenancy commenced. There was no

contract of tenancy. There is no receipt of rent. Such right is not

inheritable. The entry of Gair Marusi will not clothe them with the status

of a tenant much less the occupancy tenant. Thus, the judgment and

decree passed by the 1st Appellate court which is based on the

misreading of the evidence led by the parties and is liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants that the Ld. Appellate Court has given a finding that the

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 5 of 10

Judgment dated 12.02.2013 Ex.D1 produced by the appellants/defendants

whereby it was held that the defendants no. 1 & 2 are in the Cultivating

possession of the suit land, is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs

because they were not party to the said judgment. It is contended that

the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land in the years 2018 while the said

judgment was passed way back in Year 2013 and it is well settled law that

the subsequent purchasers steps in the shoes of the previous owners and

hence the said judgment is very much binding upon the rights of the

plaintiffs. On this score also the judgment of the lower appellant court is

liable to be set-aside.

8. In support, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants refers to

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mansu vs. Shadi Ram

(SC) Law Finder Doc Id# 36825.

9. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;

and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2025 passed by

learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani be set aside.

10. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I

have heard learned Senior counsel and perused the case file in detail. I

find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

11. The appellants are claiming to be in possession of the suit

property on the strength of the revenue entries. The Trial Court had

dismissed suit of the plaintiff on the ground that as per Jamabandi for the

year 2013-2014 Ex.P1, appellants are shown to be in cultivating

possession of the suit land; as also on the basis of Khasra Girdawari for

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 6 of 10

the year 2018-2019 Ex.P6 whereby appellants are shown to be in

possession of the suit land. However, it is undisputed fact on record that

the said revenue entries were incorrect; and stood corrected by the

Revenue Court vide order dated 12.01.2018; in pursuance to which Khasra

Girdawari entries were made in favour of the erstwhile owners by virtue

of Rapat Nos. 348 and 349; in pursuance to which Mutations Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs; and entries of correction

of Khasra Girdawari have also been incorporated in Jamabandi for the

year 2018-2019 Ex.P4. It is also not disputed by learned Senior Counsel for

the appellants that the said order dated 12.01.2018 had been challenged

by the appellants by way of appeals filed before the Assistant Collector-

cum Collector 1st Grade, Siwani; which appeals were dismissed vide order

dated 20.02.2019. It is not the case of the appellants that the said order

dated 20.2.2019 has been further challenged by them. Nothing has been

brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated 20.2.2019 was

further challenged by the defendants. Therefore, for all intents and

purposes the order dated 20.2.2019 has attained finality. The appellants

were basing their claim on the incorrect revenue record, which,

admittedly, stands corrected. Thus, as per the corrected revenue record,

plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property.

12. Reasoning of the learned trial court that Khasra Girdawari for

the year 2018-2019 Ex.P6, being document of possession, reflected

possession of the appellants, is based on misreading of the evidence. It is

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 7 of 10

categorically recorded by learned First Appellate Court, that in Khasra

Girdawari Ex.P6, there is red entry in the Rapat no. 348 and 349.

13. As regards the judgment dated 12.02.2013 Ex.D1, no doubt,

as per the said judgment, defendants were held to be in cultivating

possession of the suit land. However, plaintiffs were not party to the said

suit; and no such admission was made by them. Thus, judgment Ex.D1

cannot be held to be binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Moreover,

Orders dated 12.1.2018 and 20.2.2019 were passed after the passing of

the judgment dated 12.2.2013. Thus, the said judgment is of no relevance

at this stage.

14. Furthermore, it is the case of the appellants that Jaimal was a

tenant gair marusi over the Suit land under the previous owner, Ganesha;

and that the said Jaimal had relinquished his tenancy rights over the land

in favour of the defendants with the consent of Ganesha. However,

neither is there was any pleading nor any evidence led by the defendants

that earlier Jaimal was paying rent; how much rent was he paying to the

owner Ganesha; and since when the tenancy had commenced. There was

no contract of tenancy. There is no receipt of rent. In any event, such right

is not inheritable. The entry of Gair Marusi will not clothe the appellants

with the status of a tenant much less the occupancy tenant.

15. It may further be clarified that Khasra Girdawari corrections

were ordered by the Assistant Collector-cum-Collector, 1 st Grade, Siwani

vide order dated 12.01.2018 for the Rabi crop 2017 after spot inspection

and verifying the possession on the spot at that time. It is very important

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 8 of 10

to note that at that time, defendants No.1 and 2, and Partap Singh and

Ram Narayan sons of Jaimal had recorded their statements, which were

duly thumb marked by them, in which they admitted that they had no

objection in case the said corrections are incorporated in the Khasra

Girdawri. They had further stated that previously they were cultivating

the land; and now the land measuring 12K-6M is being cultivated by the

plaintiff. Partap Singh and Ram Narayan had also stated that Girdawari

entries in respect of land measuring 11K-3M were wrongly entered in

their names, and they had no objection if the same is corrected in favour

of the applicants/plaintiffs, who have been cultivating the land.

16. Relevant findings of learned Additional District Judge as

contained in para 32 of the judgment dated 30.01.2025, as under: -

"32. The learned Trial Court has erroneously misread the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 2018-19 (Ex. P6). The learned Trial Court has failed to notice that Khasra Girdawari entries were corrected in the name of plaintiffs and the same were incorporated in the revenue record by virtue of rapat no. 348 and 349. The perusal of Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P6) reveals that there is a red entry of rapat no. 348 and 349, which was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has further erroneously taken into consideration that in the judgment Ex. D1 defendants were admitted to be in cultivating possession of the suit land by the then learned Court. Firstly, the judgment Ex. D1 is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs because they were not party to the said judgment. Secondly, Khasra Girdawari correction was ordered to be corrected by Assessment Collector IInd Grade, Siwani vide order dated 12.01.2018 for

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 9 of 10

the crop Rabi 2017, after spot inspection and verifying the possession on the spot. Further the defendants no. 1 and 2 as well as Partap Singh and Ram Narayan sons of Jaimal have made their statements, which were duly thumb marked by them, in which they categorically admitted that they were having no objection in making correction of Khasra Girdawaries. Earlier they were cultivating the land now the land measuring 12 Kanal 06 Marlas is being cultivated by the plaintiff. Similarly, Partap Singh and Shri Ram Narayan had also stated that the entries of Girdawari of land measuring 11 Kanals 03 Marlas has been wrongly reflected in their names and they are having no objection in case the same be corrected in the name of applicants, who have been cultivating the land. Even, the appeal filed by the defendants no. 1 and 2 have also been dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Siwani vide order dated 20.02.2019. As such, the defendants have also estopped by their own act and conduct and therefore, they have no right to question the correction of entries of Khasra Girdawaries, which has attained finality. Hence, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Siwani has got jurisdiction to make correction in the Khasra Girdawari for the period subsequent to the preparation of Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. Therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court that there is no document placed on record by the plaintiffs to prove the fact that possession from the defendants was taken by the previous owners of the suit land or by the plaintiffs are totally erroneous and suffering from perversity, hence, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the findings on issue no. 1 arrived by the learned Trial Court are liable to be reversed."

RSA-1085-2025 (O&M) 10 of 10

17. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel that appellants

have not been evicted in accordance with law, is misconceived; as alleged

possession, if any, of the appellants was based on incorrect revenue

entries; which admittedly now stand corrected. Thus, in actual fact,

appellants have failed to prove their possession over the suit property.