JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. Defendant No. 1 Ram Kumar having lost in both the Courts below has filed this second appeal. The suit was filed by Pat Ram plaintiff (since deceased and represented by respondents No. 1 to 7 as his legal representatives) against defendant No. 1/appellant Ram Kumar and against proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 Jug Lal and Hem Raj (or Hans Raj?) (proforma defendants No. 8 and 9 herein). Pat Ram/plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 are sons of Har Lal. Case of the plaintiff is that their father Har Lal was owner of suit land measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas and after his death, plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 are owners in possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 threatened to interfere in their peaceful possession thereon. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from doing so. Only defendant No. 1 contested the suit whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte. Defendant No. 1 broadly denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that he is in possession of 7 kanals land out of the suit land having purchased share in joint land vide sale deed dated 12.12.2000. Learned trial court partly decreed the suit restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 over the suit land except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 has been dismissed by learned lower appellate court. Hence this second appeal by defendant No. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Jamabandis and Khasra Girdwaris produced in evidence depict that Har Lal, father of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3, was in exclusive possession of suit land although, as co- sharer. Admittedly defendant No. 1 also is co-sharer in the joint land of which the suit land is a part. Counsel for appellant contended that defendant No. 1 – appellant is in possession of 7 kanals land out of the suit land as depicted by Nehri girdwari and also by report made by kanungo during pendency of the suit. This contention cannot be accepted. Nehri girdwari cannot prevail over entries in revenue record i.e. Jamabandies and Khasra Girdwaris. Entries in Jamabandies carry presumption of correctness. The said presumption is not rebutted by Nehri girdwaris. This contention cannot be accepted. Nehri girdwari cannot prevail over entries in revenue record i.e. Jamabandies and Khasra Girdwaris. Entries in Jamabandies carry presumption of correctness. The said presumption is not rebutted by Nehri girdwaris. On the contrary, the presumption of correctness attached to entry in Jamabandis gets further strengthened in this case on account of repetition thereof in khasra girdwaries for a long period. Defendant no. 1 came into picture on purchasing share in joint land vide sale deed dated 12.12.2000 whereas possession of plaintiff or his father was recorded for more than two decades prior to it as depicted by Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and subsequent khasra girdwaris including khasra girdwaris after purchase of share in joint land by defendant No. 1. It is thus fully established that plaintiff and proforma defendants are in established exclusive possession of the suit land although as co-sharers. Exclusive possession of defendant No. 1 over any part of the suit land is not proved. Consequently, defendant no. 1 even as co-sharer has no right to interefere in established possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 over the suit land except in due course of law. Consequently, suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below to this extent. It may be mentioned that report of kanungo made during pendency of the suit cannot be made basis of the finding regarding possession of defendant No. 1. If such report is accepted then the matter would remain in the hands of the revenue officials and the functions, powers and duties of the courts would become redundant. Finding regarding possession over suit land cannot be left to spot inspection by petty revenue official. Such reports can be obtained easily by one or other party for many extraneous reasons. Such spot inspection report made during the pendency of the suit cannot over ride the revenue record persisting for long period of more than two decades. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to decree the suit of the plaintiff is fully justified by the pleadings and evidence of the parties. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the said finding of the courts below even on re-appreciation of the evidence coupled with pleadings. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the said finding of the courts below even on re-appreciation of the evidence coupled with pleadings. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.