- (1.) Defendants are in appeal against the judgment of reversal, whereby, the learned lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in appeal, vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2012, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ludhiana. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Jarnail Singh (father of respondents No.1 and 2) filed a suit for possession to the effect that he is owner of the land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas, comprised in khewat No. 142, Khatauni No. 159, Rect.No. 34, Killa No. 18/3 ( 3K-4M), Khatauni No. 160, Rect.No.34, Killa No.19 (8K- 0M) including gair mumkin bore, entered in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91 situated in the revenue estate of village Kheri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
(2.) It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that about ten years ago, Gajjan Singh son of Harnam Singh wanted to instal a tubewell bore jointly with plaintiff Jarnail Singh for the purposes of irrigation of their respective land. Consequently, Jarnail Singh made available the site for installation of tubewell bore, thereby providing killa No.19 in Rect.No.34, which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff himself. It was decided between them that the expenses incurred towards installation of the bore would be borne by Gajjan Singh and bore in question was to be used jointly for the purposes of irrigating the respective lands of the aforesaid parties i.e. the plaintiff and Gajjan Singh, till the death of Gajjan Singh. With this condition, the bore in question was installed and was being used by both the parties in the aforesaid manner till the death of Gajjan Singh. That the aforesaid Gajjan Singh died about 8-9 years ago and, thereafter, as per the aforesaid settlement, Jarnail Singh became exclusive owner of the bore in question. Aforesaid land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas was in possession of plaintiff Jarnail Singh in the capacity of owner and he remained in possession of the same in the capacity of owner up to May, 1996.
(3.) Defendants, namely, Amrik Singh and Darbara Singh, on the basis of illegal entries in the revenue record, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and succeeded in taking illegal and forcible possession of the suit land, which was earlier in the possession of plaintiff Jarnail Singh. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he came to know about erroneous entries in the revenue record only in the month of May, 1996. The entries showing Pritam Singh etc. to be in possession of Killa No.18/3 and Darbara Singh, Amrik Singh and Bhag Singh to be in possession of Killa No.19, were patently wrong and illegality has been committed by the revenue officers without notice to the plaintiff and were claimed to be the result of conspiracy with the defendants and with Gajjan Singh. The revenue entries are claimed to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio and are not binding upon the rights of plaintiff Jarnail Singh in any manner.;