- (1.) The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below, in a suit for permanent injunction. He claimed that the land in question comprising Khewat No.655 was in his possession. It was also claimed that the defendants had no right to interfere in his possession and take forcible possession thereof.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. They claimed that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. It was further claimed by the defendants that they were contesting the suit on behalf of all other cosharers of the village as all the co-sharers of the village were proprietors of the said land.
(3.) Both the courts below have found it as a fact that there was only one stray entry in favour of the plaintiff. Reliance has been placed by the two courts below on the jamabandi for the year 1995-96 (Ex.D-1)and khasra girdawari (Ex.D-2), to hold that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court and his appeal also failed before the learned first appellate court. Shri Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has very vehemently argued that as per the revenue record, the plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of the suit property but the entry was wrongly changed in the name of the defendants but on an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the same was again changed in his name. The learned counsel, thus, argues that the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous and contrary to the record.;