JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Can the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs be given weightage over the documentary evidence adduced by the defendants in the present case ? is the short question of law that arises for determination in the present appeal. 2. Smt. Chahi alias Anchahi (deceased) purchased the suit land from the Custodian of Evacuee Properties and the sale certificate was issued in her favour and the possession of the suit property was also given to her. In order to challenge her possession, one Jugti Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining her and her son Hari Kishan from interfering into his possession. The Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi, vide judgment dated December 21, 1981 dismissed the suit filed by the Jugti Ram by holding that the plaintiff Jugti Ram was not the owner or in possession of the suit property. Rather Smt. Anchahi alias Chahi was held to be the owner and in possession of the suit property. The appeal filed by Jugti Ram was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated November 15, 1983. Thereafter no appeal was filed in the High Court to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the said Courts. Thus, the decree holding Smt. Chahi as the owner and in possession of the suit land had become final. Thereafter Smt. Chahi filed a suit against Ram Chander and Bhichha for issuance of an injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit property. The Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi, vide judgment dated August 31, 1990 decreed the suit filed by Smt. Chahi as she had been proved to be the owner in possession of the suit property. No appeal against that judgment and decree was filed. Thus, that judgment had also become final. 3. Chhottu (now deceased) along with his sons, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and daughter Krishna Kumari, who is respondent No. 4, filed the present suit against Smt. Chahi appellant and her son Hari Kishan for declaration to the effect that the land in dispute had continuously been used for common purpose and the plaintiffs had acquired the right of easement over the suit land by their long use and possession. The learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Hansi, vide judgment and decree dated August 24, 1982 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents. However, the appeal filed by them was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated January 18, 1986, on the ground that the suit land was not proved to be the evacuee property and the same vested in the Gram Panchayat. Now Smt. Chahi has filed the present appeal to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar. The appeal was allowed by Honble Mr. Justice M.L. Singhal vide judgment dated July 19, 2000 and it was held that Smt. Chahi appellant had adduced sufficient documentary evidence to prove her ownership and possession of the suit property and it was held that prior to her, the Custodian of Evacuee Properties was the owner of the suit land. Rajinder Singh and others, who are the present respondents, filed a Civil Appeal in Honble the Supreme Court to challenge the judgment passed by this Court. The Honble Supreme Court vide judgment dated September 24, 2001 remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision after framing a question of law arising in the regular second appeal and on this technical ground the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents was allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced in the case. 5. Indisputably, the suit land was purchased by Smt. Chani in the open auction from the Custodian. The sale in her favour was confirmed. The possession of the land was delivered to her. The plaintiffs filed appeal against the sale, which was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated April 19, 1978. It was held that the land was not being used by the plaintiffs and the other inhabitants of the village and they had not acquired any right of easement thereon. It is also not disputed that the sale of the land was made through open auction. The plaintiffs themselves had participated in the auction held by the Tehsildar (Sales). 6. In brief the case of the plaintiffs is that they and other inhabitants of the village had acquired the right of easement. According to them, there is a pond as well as gair mumkin rastas in the land. The plaintiffs themselves had participated in the auction held by the Tehsildar (Sales). 6. In brief the case of the plaintiffs is that they and other inhabitants of the village had acquired the right of easement. According to them, there is a pond as well as gair mumkin rastas in the land. They also state that there are Bitoras (dung cake hills) in the land. They excavate earth from the pond and mould bricks and bake them there. The cattle of the villagers take water from the pond situated in the suit land. The land vests in the Gram Panchayat and the Custodian had no right to auction the land. The auction of the land by the Custodian in favour of Smt. Chahi vests her with no right, title or ownership in the land. The plaintiffs contend that prior to the partition of the country, the land did not belong to the Muslims. 7. Shri Ram Asra, Naib Tehsildar, Hansi, who was appointed Local Commissioner, stated that 4 or 6 streets only touch the land in suit. In the cross-examination he stated that in the village there were Muslims prior to partition and the suit land was owned by the Custodian. In the Jamabandis for the years 1958-59 (Ex. PA), 1967-68 (Ex. PB) and 1972-73 (Ex. D4), the suit land is shown to be Araaji Matrooka Bila Alat Maqbooza Custodian. There is no documentary evidence adduced on record to show that the suit land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. Presumption of truth is attached to the Jamababdi entries under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Rather there is a resolution (Ex. D1) by the Gram Panchayat in which the Gram Panchayat conceded that the suit land is in the ownership of the Custodian. In this resolution it is recorded that towards the East of their village there is Custodian land, which measures about 35 kanals comprising in Khasra No. 185/3-8-13-19 which was auctioned by the Government and it was purchased by Smt, Chahi for Rs. 11,500/- at the auction. As already stated above, the sale in favour of Smt. Chahi was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated January 24, 1977. The possession of the land was delivered to her and a report with respect thereto was recorded in the Roznamcha Waquiati (Ex. D2) dated July 18, 1978. 8. 11,500/- at the auction. As already stated above, the sale in favour of Smt. Chahi was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated January 24, 1977. The possession of the land was delivered to her and a report with respect thereto was recorded in the Roznamcha Waquiati (Ex. D2) dated July 18, 1978. 8. The suit land was lying uncultivated. In case in that land, which was lying uncultivated, the villagers set up Johar and Botoras that does not mean that it went out of the possession of the Custodian. The use of Johar (pond) by the villagers does not vest them with any right of easement as there is no evidence regarding the duration of the time since when they have using this johar. There is also no evidence adduced on record that there is any passage through this land. If the people pass through this land, finding it uncultivated, that does not mean that they have acquired any right to pass through it. 9. The plaintiff-respondents have not adduced any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the Gram Panchayat owner of the suit land or that they had acquired any right thereon by their long use and possession. Vide judgment dated January 15, 1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, as well as the judgment dated August 31, 1990, passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Hansi, it has been held that Smt. Chahi was the owner in possession of the suit land as she had purchased it in open auction which took place in the village. The said judgments have become final as no appeal was filed against them. No doubt the factum of possession can be proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. However, in the presence of sufficient documentary evidence adduced by Smt. Chahi, the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff- respondents cannot be given any weightage. The ownership and possession of Smt. Chahi over the suit land stood proved in the Civil Courts in different litigations. Those judgments have attained finality. Thus, the law point which has been framed at the outset, is decided in favour of the defendant- appellants and against the plaintiff-respondents. 10. The ownership and possession of Smt. Chahi over the suit land stood proved in the Civil Courts in different litigations. Those judgments have attained finality. Thus, the law point which has been framed at the outset, is decided in favour of the defendant- appellants and against the plaintiff-respondents. 10. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated January 18, 1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, and restore and the judgment and decree dated August 24, 1982 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Hansi, and hold that Smt. Chahi is the owner of the suit land on account of her purchase from the Custodian for consideration and the plaintiff-respondents have got no right of easement thereon. The suit filed by Chhottu (deceased) is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.