***

H.S. MADAAN, J. –

1. This regular second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.7.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Loharu dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff – Agri Ram against defendant Municipal Committee, Loharu as well as judgment and decree dated 4.10.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment and decree delivered by the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Agri Ram had brought a suit against defendant – Municipal Committee, Loharu seeking possession of land comprised in Khewat No.49//47 min Khatoni No.61 Khasra and killa No.20//30(1-5) 'gair mumkin' total measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas situated at Mauja Akbarpur, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani claiming himself to be owner of that land on the basis of entry made in the revenue record.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no concern with the suit land, however is in illegal occupation thereof and it has not handed over the possession of that chunk of land to the plaintiff despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 1.11.2013, as such the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

3. On notice, the defendant, Municipal Committee, Loharu put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections, on merits contending that Sh.Bhuru son of Sh.Sheo Chand adopted son of Kishan Jat, resident of village Akbarpur, who was none else but father of plaintiff, was owner in possession of land measuring 7 bighas 04 biswas comprised in khasra No.71(1-4) and 76//1(6-0), situated at Akbarpur, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani; Sh.Bhuru had sold land measuring 3 bighas 10 biswas comprised in khasra No.71(1-4) and 76//1 min(2-6) to the defendant committee for a sum of Rs.3,000/- vide registered sale deed No.1268 dated 9.2.1962 and that some part of khasra No.76//1(6-0) was acquired by the State of Haryana for constructing a road, which vested in PWD Department; that consolidation of holdings bighas and biswas were converted into kanals and marlas and defendant was recorded in possession in respect of the land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khasra No.20//30(1-5) in lieu of the land purchased from Bhuru, father of the plaintiff; the defendant Committee has carved out a park on that piece of land and the entries in the revenue record showing plaintiff to be owner of that piece of land are wrong and illegal, ineffective qua rights of the defendant committee; therefore the plaintiff has no right to claim possession of land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khasra No.20//30(1-5) from the defendant. The defendant had craved for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not valued for the purpose of Court fees? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

6. Relief.

5. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead evidence. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff got his own statement recorded as PW1 and produced in evidence documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 as Ex.P1, legal notice as Ex.P2 and receipt as Mark-A and thereafter closed his evidence.

6. In rebuttal, the defendant examined Surender Kumar – Clerk as DW1, Satender Kumar as DW2, Ramesh Kumar – Patwari as DW3 and Ramjiwaya as DW4 and relied upon various documents.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court of Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Loharu decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff, issues No.2 to 5 were decided against the defendant. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

8. The plaintiff went in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. However, the Lower Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani did not find any fault with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2022.

9. Dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff has knocked at the door of this Court by way of filing regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below be set aside and the suit filed by him be decreed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant besides going through the record.

11. Both the Courts below by proper appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of law have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is owner of the land allegedly in wrongful possession of the defendant or that he is entitled to get possession thereof. The plaintiff is relying upon entries in the jamabandi. Such entries though carry presumption of truth but that presumption is rebuttable. The defendant has successfully rebutted the presumption showing that father of the plaintiff had sold 2 bighas 6 biswas of land to defendant in the year 1962 vide sale deed Ex.D1 and the sold land had khasra No.76/1(6-0). It is to be taken note of that jamabandi is not a document of title and is mainly prepared for fiscal purposes to determine the liability of payment of land revenue, whereas the sale deed is a document of title. In case of any conflict, the sale deed is to take precedence. Furthermore, father of the plaintiff having sold the land in question to the defendant vide sale deed Ex.D1 was not left with any right or interest in that piece of land. The plaintiff is driving his title to the land through his father. If his father was not left with any right or interest in the land in question, then the plaintiff could not possibly acquire the same from his father. The entries in the jamabandi are not helpful to the plaintiff at all in establishing his case. In case of any conflict, the sale deed is to be relied upon and not the entries in the jamabandi. Exactly, similar approach had been adopted by the Courts below, which cannot be faulted. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is no illegality or infirmity therein.

12. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

13. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and do not see any reason to disturb the legal, valid and well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

14. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

Appeal dismissed.

********