Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is before this court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the suit for possession by way of pre -emption filed by him was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts, as noticed by the learned courts below, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be a tenant on the suit property. As the owner thereof had sold the same, suit for pre -emption was filed. The preemption was claimed by mentioning the following khasra numbers: Khewat/Khatuni No. 20/36 to 41, khasra Nos. 26/12(6 -17), 8//11/2(1 -8), 6//22/1 min (1 -19), 8/1 min (1 -1), 8/10(4 -8), 8//11/1(2 -5), 6/19(1 -10), 6//22/1(0 -13), and khewat No. 50, khatauni Nos. 93 to 97, khasra Nos. 26/11(8 -0), 26/18(0 -6), 26/20(8 -0), 26/13(0 -7), 8//2/1(1 -1), 8//2/1(0 -2) and khewat No. 56 khatauni Nos. 104 to 115, khasra Nos. 40(0 -7), 25//15/2(4 -0), 27/1(4 -0), 25/25 min (5 -16), 26/21(7 -11), 26/22(0 -12), 41(0 -8), 25/24 min (2 -4), 28/5 min (2 -12), 28/4 min (0 -19), 28/4 min (0 -4), 25/24 min (5 -16), 25/25 min (2 -4), 28/4 min (6 -17), 28/5 min (5 -8), total measuring 49 kanals 8 marlas and the land measuring 2 K -18 M, out of the land measuring 7 K -8 M bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 18/29, Khasra No. 21/21(7 -8) situated at village Bhukhari Hadbast No. 130 Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala as detailed in described in the sale deed dated 30.4.1997 bearing document No. 188/1, on payment of Rs. 72000/ -. Both the courts below found that the appellant had not been able to prove himself to be a tenant on the property measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas of land, as the appellant failed to establish that he had been paying any batai though was recorded as a tenant on the suit property. Further, the appellant was non -suited on the ground that in the sale deed registered in his favour, specific khasra numbers of which pre -emption was claimed, had not been mentioned. As far as 2 kanals and 18 marlas of land is concerned, even in the revenue record, the appellant was not shown to be the tenant. During the pendency of the suit, he filed application before the revenue authorities for correction of khasra girdawaris, which proceedings are still stated to be pending at some stage.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned courts below had gone wrong in not perusing the jamabandis on record. In fact, those have been misread. In the jamabandis, the appellant had been clearly shown to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant under the vendor on 1/3rd batai. The vendor had deliberately not mentioned the khasra numbers in the sale -deed as he merely mentioned khata and khatauni numbers. There is a presumption of truth in favour of the revenue record. Once it is mentioned in the revenue record that the appellant was a tenant on 1/3rd batai, there was no requirement of proving that actually any amount was being paid or crop was being shared. No challenge has been made to rejection of the claim for pre -emption pertaining to 2 kanals 18 marlas of land, for which the revenue record produced on record was not showing the appellant to be the tenant on the suit property as even the application for correction of khasra girdawari was made during the pendency of the civil suit, the proceedings for which are still stated to be pending before the authorities. Learned counsel submitted that he is not pressing his claim for 2 kanals and 18 marlas of land and restricting the same to only 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Chand v. Randhir Singh and others, : AIR 1995 SC 130 and this court in Smt. Ratni Devi v. Chankanda Ram and another, : 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 142.;