JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) - This appeal was admitted on 17.12.1996 on the following substantial questions of law; 1. Whether the learned Courts below appreciated the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and .evidence adduced by them in the case in hand in its true and correct perspective ? 2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are legally and factually sustainable in the eyes of law? 3. Whether document Ex. PW2/A has been misappreciated and misread by both the learned Courts below? 4. Whether the change in the revenue entries without following the procedure prescribed in Land Record Manual renders the said change null and void? 5. Whether the statement of DW1 has been misappreciated by the learned Courts below thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 6. Whether the presumption of truth attached to jamabandi is rebutted, reliable and cogent evidence? 2. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard on the above and with their assistance record of the Courts below has also been examined. Facts as they emerge and are relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under 3. Amin Chand and others, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs11, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land as per entries made in Jamabandi for the years 1981-82. The entries in the name of Bhagtu respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" showing him as a tenant at will are wrong, null and void, contrary to law and have no binding force on their rights. By way of consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for against the defendant from in any manner interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 4. Cause for maintaining the suit pleaded was, that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land, and at no point of time they had inducted the defendant as tenant over it. Per them, during consolidation in the year 1982 they came to know about the wrong entries. While advancing their case, plaintiffs pleaded further that they are in continuous possession without any interference from anyone including the defendant. When defendant was called upon to concede the claim of the plaintiffs, he denied, hence necessity of filing the suit. Plaint in this case was filed on 29.3.1988. While advancing their case, plaintiffs pleaded further that they are in continuous possession without any interference from anyone including the defendant. When defendant was called upon to concede the claim of the plaintiffs, he denied, hence necessity of filing the suit. Plaint in this case was filed on 29.3.1988. Cause of action accrued to plaintiffs per them one week back, (i.e. from the date of filing of the suit/date of plaint. Plaint is dated 29.3.1988. 5. When put to notice, defendant controverted all these pleas. According to him earlier the plaintiffs were the landlords and he was the tenant under them. But with the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he was in possession of the suit land as an owner. It was specifically pleaded that he is in possession since 1945-46 as tenant. All other averments made in the plaint were stated to be wrong and incorrect. 6. In replication filed by the plaintiffs to paragraph No. 1 wherein specific plea that defendant being in possession since 1945-46 as tenant was set up, what is stated was as underlet is denied. Para 1 of the plaint is reiterated." 7. With a view to show that in the suit facts were properly set up as per law of pleadings, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs laid stress on paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the plaint. For ready reference both these paras are extracted herein below:- 3. That the defendant was never inducted as tenant in the suit land nor he ever got in possession of the same. The entries in his name in the revenue record are wrong, unauthorisedly made and procured at the back of the plaintiffs and have no binding force on the rights of the plaintiffs. 4. That in the consolidation, proceeding now going on in village Kolka, the plaintiffs came to know about the wrong entry in the revenue record qua the suit land about a week back. 8. Mr. Ajay Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that since the above extracted substantial questions of law arise in the facts and circumstances of this case, as such on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld in appeal by first appellate Court need to be reversed and consequently suit decreed. He further submitted that it is basic and fundamental principle of law that a person cannot be condemned unheard to his detriment. That too behind his back without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. At the same time, he submitted that here the provisions of Punjab and Land Revenue Act, 1887 (which was applicable in the area where the land is situate in the year 1945-46), as well as paragraph 9.9 of the Punjab and Land Records Manual both have been followed more in breach than compliance. No entry could have been altered to the detriment of the party concerned, plaintiffs in the present case. He further submitted that entry can only be changed either on admitted factors or under a lawful and valid order of Revenue Officer or of a civil Court. In the instant case none of these situations existed, as such he has prayed for allowing this appeal. 9. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant. He submitted that findings of both Courts below need to uphold on the basis of evidence on record. Further this appeal involves no question of law to be determined by this Court. 10. One of the plaintiffs, namely, Mast Ram appeared as his own witness and has examined PW-2 Bidhi Chand Patwari Halka. On the other hand, defendant has appeared as his own witness. Parties have also produced documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. 11. Looking to the averments made in the plaint in the first blush an impression is given that till 1981-82, entries were in favour of the plaintiffs and only week prior to the date of filing of the suit that cause of action arose to plaintiff for filling the suit on the basis of alleged wrong entries. If this was factual situation made from the evidence on record, situation will be totally different. However, t may say here that man may lie documents wont". 12. In this behalf when a reference is made to Ex. PW-2/A, and a copy of Rapat Rojnamcha Waquati dated 21.9.1945 and relied upon by the plaintiff, it clearly indicates that during the harvest inspection Tagirats (changes) in possession noted by the Patwari Halka. He noted those and these were, entered in respect of different khasra numbers of village Kolka. 12. In this behalf when a reference is made to Ex. PW-2/A, and a copy of Rapat Rojnamcha Waquati dated 21.9.1945 and relied upon by the plaintiff, it clearly indicates that during the harvest inspection Tagirats (changes) in possession noted by the Patwari Halka. He noted those and these were, entered in respect of different khasra numbers of village Kolka. Learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance that suit land comprises in Khasra No. 1654 finds mentioned in it i.e. Ex. PW-2/A. It clearly shows that after noting the changes in possession found on the Crop Inspection, report was made in the Rapat Rojnamcha Waqyati (daily diary). This is attested by Girdawar halqua. 13. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs seriously contested the so-called attestation. As according to him it does not bear any date. How it improves the case of the plaintiffs in any manner learned Counsel was unable to satisfy the court. Whole thrust of his submission with respect to Ext. PW-2/A was, that this entry is unauthorised and having not been made as required under law, is by itself is a good ground to allow this appeal. Suffice it to say in this behalf that this entry continued to be in existence since 1945-46. Suit is admittedly filed in the month of March, 1988 when the consolidation commenced in the village and when the plaintiff claims to have come to know about it. Date has not been specifically mentioned. Reason is not difficult to find about such omission. If dates were mentioned, may be that plaint would have been rejected, being prima facie barred by time. 14. Once this conclusion is arrived at, reference to the decision of Supreme Court reported in case Durga (deceased) and others v. Milkhi Ram and others, 1969 P.LJ. 105, as well as two decisions of this Court, and to one Punjab and Haryana High Court, are of no avail to the case of the plaintiffs. Thus, the submissions made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff is of no significance and no benefit can be given of the said decisions. I may hasten to add that so far proposition of law laid down in the decision of Supreme Court is concerned, there can hardly be any controversy regarding it. 15. With a view to advance the case of the plaintiff, further Mr. I may hasten to add that so far proposition of law laid down in the decision of Supreme Court is concerned, there can hardly be any controversy regarding it. 15. With a view to advance the case of the plaintiff, further Mr. Sharma laid great emphasis on paragraphs 3 and 4 extracted hereinabove and to the written statement filed by defendant to these paragraphs, and thus pressed into service provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. As according to him the averments made in these two paras having not been specifically admitted/denied, and the denial being general and cryptic in nature. Therefore, those need to be treated as admitted. Here Para 1 of the plaint along with Para 1 of the written statement and paragraph 1 of the replication to this Para needs to be extracted along with paras 3 and 4 of the written statement which can to the following effect:- Para 1 of the plaint That the land measuring 11 marlas, as fully described in the hand note, of the plaint»is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. Para 1 of the Written Statement In reply to Para 1 of the plaint, it is submitted that formerly the plaintiffs were landlords and the defendant was in possession as tenant under them. But after enforcement of H.P. and Land Reforms Act, the defendant is in possession as owner. The defendant is coming in possession over the suit land since 1945-46. Para 1 of Replication Denied. Para 1 of the plaint is reiterated. Paras 3 and 4 of written statement 3. Para No. 3 of the plaint is wrong. 4. Para No. 4 of the plaint is admitted to the extent that the consolidation proceedings are going on in the village. The rest of the Para is wrong. 16. Suffice it to say that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have first specifically pleaded its case on facts as to on what date they came to know regarding the entries having been wrongfully changed showing the defendant as tenant under them and thereafter what steps they took to look into the revenue record and to ascertain as to how and when such entries came into existence. 17. At the risk of repetition it may be noted here that the facts were not purposely pleaded because once those were brought on record, suit was prima facie barred by time. 17. At the risk of repetition it may be noted here that the facts were not purposely pleaded because once those were brought on record, suit was prima facie barred by time. And not only this, but in case plaintiffs claimed exemption from limitation then they were required to plead further facts. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was a bona fide omission on the part of the plaintiffs, then in the written statement the plaintiffs were put to specific notice by the defendant that he was in possession of the suit land as tenant under them (plaintiffs) since 1945-46, and had become owner thereof after coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Plaintiff could have either amended the plaint and sought appropriate relief in the face of this allegation, or in any case would have controverted the allegations made in paragraphs 1 of the written statement. What is stated therein has been extracted hereinabove. Thus, this plea does not improve the case of the plaintiffs. No doubt that the stand of defendant in his written statement to paras No. 3 and 4 is also vague. But no benefit can be derived from it in the circumstances of this case. 18. In this behalf it may also be noted that in the grounds of appeal filed before the first appellate Court, this question had not been raised as was argued by the learned Counsel. In addition to this, this is not set up as a substantial question of law in the memo of appeal. Nor this question in my considered view arises in the present case on the basis of facts stated in the plaint. That being the position, this plea is not available to the plaintiffs. 19. No other point is urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as well as keeping in view the findings recorded by both the courts below which are based on evidence both oral and documentary on record, the aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. -