2003 PLP 328 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 4th September, 2002. On 3‑1‑1989 the respondents filed a suit against the appellants. In the plaint it was stated that the suit land described with reference to old as well as new entries in paras. 2 and 3 of the plaint was owned by them or their predecessor while the appellants or their predecessor was non‑occupancy tenant; that share of produce was being paid till one year prior to the institution of the suit but then it was refused and appellants even denied title of the appellants and repudiated the tenancy. With these averments a decree for possession and declaration of title was sought. The appellants in their written statement proceed to deny the said allegations in the plaint and objected that the suit is barred by time and that they have become owner by adverse possession. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondents vide judgment and decree, dated 4‑3‑1992 feeling aggrieved they filed a first appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. who allowed the same and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents vide judgment and decree, dated 8‑10‑1995.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the impugned judgment suffers from error of law inasmuch as entries recorded in the Revenue Record do go to show that the possession of the appellant is adverse. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that the said entries do not constitute evidence of adverse possession when in column of possession the appellants were and are recorded as non‑occupancy tenants under the respondents.

3. I have gone through the trial Court records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The entries being relied upon by the learned counsel are those in "Lagan" column of documents Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2. Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.1. Exh.D.1 is the Jamabandi for the year 1924‑

25. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents are recorded as in the column of possession and in the column of remarks entry is as Exh.D.2 is the Jamabandi for the year 1932‑33 the entry regarding predecessor‑in interest of the appellants in column of possession is the same while in the column of "Lagan" the entry is as: Exh.P.2 is the Jamabandi for the year 1936‑

37. The entry in the "Lagan" column is as " "and. In Exh.P.3 which is Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1965‑66 the entries in column "Lagan" are as and entries in Exh.P.1, which is Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1986 -87 in the column of "Lagan are as.

4. Now according to the written statement filed by the appellants they admitted that the land is recorded to be owned by respondents but it is in fact ancestral and since forefather they are in possession as owners. In para. 4 the appellants have tried to state that they are in occupation as occupancy tenants.

5. There of course is no evidence on the record either in support of valid title or the fact that the appellants had been occupying the land as non‑occupancy tenant.

6. The said entry of has been a subject‑mater of several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. In the case of Shad Muhammad v. Khan Noor PLD 1986 SC 91 it was laid down that the entries in the column of "Lagan" which are not otherwise corroborated by any evidence cannot take precedence over the entries in column of cultivation. In the said case the column of "Lagan" narrated that no rent is being paid on account of mortgage. The column of possession narrated D that the said person is a tenant. No evidence was produced to prove the mortgage. It was held that mere non‑payment of rent by tenant as mentioned in "Lagan" column by itself would not change the character as tenant of the said person if he is recorded as tenant in the cultivation column.

7. The impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Jude is in prefect accord with the said rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of reading of the entries in the Revenue E Record and the ratio that the entry in column of possession is to take precedence ever the entry in column of "Lagan" in absence of any evidence in support of the latter entries.

8. This R.S.A. is accordingly found to be without any force and is dismissed without any older as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1490/L Appeal dismissed.