JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 11.12.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, whereby he decreed the suit with costs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and/or throwing garbage or storing manure in Khasra No.18/14/1/60/0-2, 18//14/1/61/0-4, Khata No.523/584 and 524/585 situated in Village Baghana, Tehsil Phagwara. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land, which is being used by them for storing garbage and manure etc. The same has been described as “Gair Mumkin Ruri” in the jamabandi. The defendants have no right or title thereto. They are forcibly interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the same. They are adamant to throw garbage and store manure therein. On being requested to desist from doing so, they refused. On these allegations, the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or taking forcible possession of the land in dispute. 3. In answer to this claim, the defendants in their written statement have inter-alia pleaded that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plot measuring 2 marlas in which the answering defendants store manure. That no demarcation was made by the revenue officials. The parties have been storing the manure therein as per their legal rights. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. 4. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:­ 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is misuse of the process of law as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is without cause of action as alleged?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are barred from filing this suit, by their own act and conduct as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed earlier. OPD 5. Whether the suit is without cause of action as alleged?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are barred from filing this suit, by their own act and conduct as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendants went up in appeal which was dismissed as noticed supra. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, they have preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. 6. Mr. A.K. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate urged with great vigour that there is no evidence on the record to connect the alleged khasra numbers with the place, where the ruri (manure) is being stored by the­ defendants/ appellants. The learned Courts below have overlooked the copy of the jamabandi Ex.DX which reflects that the ruri is being stored by the inhabitants in these khasra numbers. The defendants/appellants are not storing the ruri in Khasra Number 14/1/60 and 61. The place where the defendants/ appellants store the ruri is not comprised in the disputed khasra numbers. Furthermore, the photographs depict that the defendants/ appellants store the ruri in the place, which exists opposite to their respective houses. In these premises, the findings returned by both the Courts below are liable to be reversed. 7. To overcome these submissions, Mr. D.C. Dhaula, Advocate representing the respondents argued that the revenue record discussed by both the Courts below in their respective judgments speaks volumes of the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the disputed land and that being so, the defendants/appellants have no right to use the disputed khasra numbers for the purpose of storing the manure or garbage. This contention merits acceptance. As per entries in the copy of jamabandi Ex.P.1, the plaintiffs are in possession of the khasra numbers in dispute. The defendants appellants have produced Ex.DX, copy of jamabandi, which reveals that the same does not pertain to the suit property. This contention merits acceptance. As per entries in the copy of jamabandi Ex.P.1, the plaintiffs are in possession of the khasra numbers in dispute. The defendants appellants have produced Ex.DX, copy of jamabandi, which reveals that the same does not pertain to the suit property. In view of the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, “An entry made in a record-of-rights in accordance with the law for the time being in force, or in an annual record in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the rules there-under, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.” The presumption of correctness attaches to the entries existing in the jamabandi. If the need be, the reference may be made to the observations rendered in re: Jarnail Singh v. Maro, 2003(3) Recent Civil Reports 543. However, the same are rebuttable, But herein, this presumption has gone rebutted. The plaintiffs have come up with a specific plea that they are the owners in possession of the disputed khasra numbers. This fact is amply borne out from the entries in the revenue record referred to above, wherein the suit property has been described as Gair Mumkin ruri. More to the point, Tehal Singh, one of the defendants as DW2 under the stress of cross-examination has admitted that they have been obstructing the plaintiffs from using the suit property. The plaintiffs-respondents being owners in possession are entitled to protect their possession. In view of the afore-referred admission made by Tehal Singh DW2 in his cross-examination, the defendants have invaded the lawful right of the plaintiffs to use the property in suit being its owners in possession by obstructing them (plaintiffs) from using the same. 8. In view of the above discussion, the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below warrant no interference. This apart, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Sequelly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellants- defendants would be at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for getting the land demarcated, if so, advised. --------------