Chand Singh (deceased) represented by his legal heirs Tej Kaur and others vs Pritam Singh and others

M.S. Liberhan, J.

Chand Singh plaintiff sought the relief of declaration of his title to onethird share in the land in dispute, claiming title through Smt. Kalawanti, who effected sale vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1972 in his favour, with consequent relief of injunction.

The defendants denied the title of Smt. Kalawanti as well as her possession. The following issues were framed :

Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the land in dispute ? O.P.P.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? O.P.P.

Relief.

The trial Court found Smt. Kalawanti to be the owner to the extent of onethird share, therefore the plaintiff acquired a valid title and further found him to be in joint possession of the land in dispute to the extent of one third share. Resultantly, the suit was decreed for declaration.

The lower appellate Court after admitting additional evidence came to the conclusion that the land in dispute had been allotted to Kaka Ram and Pritam Singh alone during consolidation. The said allotment has been proved from the copy of the Fard, Abadi and Ruri, which categorically shows that the land measuring 4 Biswas of Abadi and 2 Biswas of Ruri was allotted to Kaka Ram at serial No. 10. Similarly vide serial No. 11 site measuring 4 Biswas of Abadi land and 2 Biswas of Ruri has been allotted to Pritam Singh. The said allotment finds corroboration from resolution recorded during consolidation, Exhibit D/2. The witness stated that no Abadi land or Ruri site had been allotted to Shiv Ram, brother of Kaka Ram and Pritam Singh, whose daughter is Smt. Kalawanti, through whom the plaintiff was claiming title. Shiv Ram was not residing in the village. He did not claim Abadi or Ruri site for the reason of his resident being at Patiala. It was further found that in view of the allotment order supported by the circumstance that Shiv Ram was a nonresident of the village, the land in dispute was owned and possessed by Kaka Ram and Pritam Singh, alone.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the Jamabandi Exhibit P3, in the column of ownership, Smt. Kalwanti has been show to be the owner to the extent of onethird share and since Jamabandi carries presumption of truth, hence her title stands proved. However, in my view, the presumption in the Jamabandi with respect to the ownership stands rebutted, in view of the allotment having been made by the consolidation authorities. The allotment has never been challenged either before me or before the Court below. There is nothing on the record to show the ownership of Smt. Kalawanti or of her father after the land in dispute had been allotted in consolidation to Kaka Ram and Pritam Singh. Jamabandi is not a document of title. It is contended that in the sale deed executed by Smt. Kalawanti, she claimed herself to be the owner of onethird share with respect to the land in dispute, in the sale effected in favour of the defendants on 22.6.1973, the same proves her title. The contention of the appellant is required only to be mentioned and rejected for the obvious reason that it can at the most amount to an admission by her in her own favour. This does not confer any title on Smt. Kalawanti. There being no evidence on the record to prove that Smt. Kalawanti, the predecessorininterest of Chand Singh, through whom the plaintiff claims the title, was the owner. The plaintiff has failed to prove his title. There is no evidence to prove the possession of the plaintiff either except the oral evidence which has been disbelieved.

No other point has been urged nor any error has been pointed out in the findings of the lower appellate Court. I find no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are affirmed.