such properties. The alleged local committee has no legal status. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It appears that there is persistent move to grab the suit property. Earlier Baba Lakha Singh and others tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff filed suit No.65 dated 20.06.1995 against them. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.1997. Thereafter, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and the plaintiff had to file the instant suit on 15.07.1999, which has also been decreed. The previous suit against Lakha Singh etc. pertained to suit land and as well as other land. In all the Jamabandis, plaintiff Darbar Sahib Tahli Sahib has been recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property. Previously the plaintiff was recorded to be owner in possession through Mahant Sudarshan Dass. Now the plaintiff is recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property through Mahant Karan Dass in the revenue record. It is thus apparent from the consistent entries in the revenue record that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and defendants have no right, title or interest therein. Entries in Jamabandis carry presumption of correctness. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the defendants in any manner. On the other hand, the said presumptions gets strengthened because there are consistent entries spread over more than three decades before the filing of the suit. Defendants have miserably failed to depict that they are Sewadars of the Gurdwara allegedly existing in the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that there are two Samadhs in the suit property whereas defendants alleged that there is only one Samadh. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and defendants have no right, title or interest therein and consequently defendants cannot interfere in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
