Appeal dismissed. The High Court held questions were purely factual. Finding no material prejudice to appellants, the court refused interference in factual findings.
Concurrent judgments of courts below dismissing the suit are upheld. Appeal dismissed. Pending Civil Miscellaneous Applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2822 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 07, 2009
Ramji Lal
...... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jessia @ Jasia and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 24.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of
the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants claiming that they had become owners of the land in dispute since they were occupancy tenants thereon.
The following questions have been proposed:-
RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M)
2
favour?
iii)Whether the onus to prove payment of batai beyond land revenue was on the respondents and once they have failed to prove evidence in support thereof, adverse inference should have been drawn against them?
iv)Whether the revenue record produced by the appellant before the court has been misinterpreted by the Courts?
It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. On appreciation of evidence the Courts below have held that neither the appellants were proved to be in cultivating uninterrupted possession nor were they able to establish their primary plea that the land had been given to their ancestors in 1926. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
September 07, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a change in revenue entries without notice or competent authority order is void and illegal?
Whether a long, continuous, and uninterrupted entry in the revenue record holds presumption in its favour?
Whether adverse inference should have been drawn against respondents who failed to prove payment of batai beyond land revenue?
Ramji Lal
Smt. Jessia @ Jasia and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
