Judgment:
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. The present second appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-1-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala reversing the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1989 of the learned sub-Judge Ist Class (2), Palampur. Defendants No. 2 to 4 have been impleaded as pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present appeal. The appellant -- defendant No. 1 and the pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 collectively are being referred to as the defendants hereinafter.
2. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the land detailed below and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute :--
(i) Land measuring 0-32-47 hectares comprising of Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 6 min and khasra Nos. 688, 731, 750, 776, 822, 832, 851 and 853 of village Mandhole, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra;
(11) Land measuring 0-09-30 Hectares comprised in khata No. 2, Khatauni No. 12 min and khasra No. 744 and 753 of village Mandhole, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra.
(iii) Land measuring 0-03-93 hectares comprised in khata No. 1. Khatauni No. 1 min and khasra Nos. 444 and 446 of Village Kunsal Buhali, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra; and
(iv) Land measuring 0-50-42 hectares comprised in khata No. 4, Khatauni No. 9 and khasra Nos. 370. 371, 447, 448 and 469 of village Kunsal Buhall. Tehsll Baijnath, District Kangra,
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for the possession of the land in dispute. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession, co-owners in joint possession and co-owners in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The defendants, who have no right, title or interest therein have started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute.
4. The defendants while resisting the suit, though admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs qua the land in dispute, denied their possession. They pleaded that they are in possession thereof. It was averred that their Predecessor-in-interest Larju has been cultivating the land in dispute as a tenant for the last more than 40 years and after his death the defendants are coming possession thereof. It was further averred that on coming to know of the wrong revenue entries in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants in 1985 had applied for the correction of such revenue entries in their favour. Objections as to jurisdiction of civil Courts, maintainability of the suit, absence of cause of action and the suit being bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties were also raised.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the defendants are interfering in the possession of plaintiffs as alleged? OPP
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-Joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant as alleged? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
8. Relief.
6. The learned trial Court decided issue NOB. 3 and 5 against the defendants andissue Nos. 2. 4 and 7 against the plaintiffs, Issue No. 1 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and partly against them. It was held that though the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute, they were not in possession thereof. Deciding issue No. 6 in favour of the defendants, it was held that the defendants are in possession of the land in dispute as non-occupancy tenants, Consequent upon such findings of suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-4-1989.
7. In appeal carried by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge, the Judgment and decree of the trial Court' were set aside and a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs holding them to be the owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The defendants by way of a perpetual injunction were restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court by way of the present second appeal, which stands admitted on 18-7-1994 on the following substantial question of law :--
'Whether the first appellate Court has misread the oral evidence produced by the appellant -- defendant in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court that presumption of truth attached to jamabandi entries recorded in favour of the respondents -- plaintiffs stand rebutted?'
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
10. Ex. PI to P4 are the copies of jamabandies for the year 1984-85 wherein the plaintiffs are recorded to be in possession of the land in dispute as owners thereof. In Ex. P2 copy of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (which has been placed on record as additional evidence by the defendants themselves) also the plaintiffs are recorded as in possession of the land in dispute as owners thereof. Defendant Dumnu Ram while appearing as his own witness as DW1 has admitted that the application made by him to the Revenue Officer for correction of revenue entries was dismissed, Though he admitted having filed an appeal against the order of dismissal of his application, there is nothing on record to show as to what hap-pened to such appeal -- Whether it was allowed or dismissed.
11. Section 45, H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, which attaches a presumption of truth to the revenue entries, provides :--
'An entry made in a record of rights in accordance with law for the time being in force or a periodical record in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.'
12. It has been held in Sant Ram v. Faquiroo, (1984 Sim LC 283) : (AIR 1985 HP 10 that it is settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the revenue record and to rebut such a presumption convincing and reliable evidence is required. It was further held that where the oral evidence led by the parties is evenly balanced, reliance has to be placed on the entries in the revenue record.
13. The onus of rebutting the presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries contained in Ex. P 1 to Ex. P4 and Ex. A2 was on the defendants. They have failed to rebut the presumption. The oral evidence led by the parties is evenly balanced. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court has rightly placed reliance on the revenue entries in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute as owners thereof. There has been no misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. The findings of the first appellate Court do not call for any Interference.
14. As a result, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.