Jai Singh ) vs Mahender Singh (Since Deceased) ... on 6 June, 2020
59. The undisputed fact is that the names of the plaintiffs have been
recorded in the revenue records, record-of-rights as Bhumidhars in
relation to the suit property. It is apparent nay evident from the evidence
on record that the plaintiffs name are reflected in the revenue records,
coupled with the fact that they are also in settled possession of the suit
property. It is also observed that no evidence has been led by the
defendants to rebut plaintiffs' evidence. It is the case of the defendants
that they have been in possession of the suit property and prior to them
their forefathers were in possession of the suit property. It is observed
from the evidence on record that other than the Form P-5, there is no
shred of evidence that the defendants are or have been in possession of
CS DJ ADJ No. 515659/2016
Page No. 20/40
the suit property. It is also observed that a report of the Naib Tahsildar
dated 08.04.2009 states that on local enquiry it was revealed that Jai
Singh and Deep Chand (plaintiffs herein) were in possession of land
situated under Khasra No. 43/13 (4/15). However, it is not out of place
to observe herein that even the entry made in the revenue record (i.e.
Form P-5) in favour of the defendants by order dated 31.03.2010 passed
by the concerned Tahsildar was set aside by order dated 29.03.2012
passed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner, Delhi in Jai Singh & Anr.
v. Mahender Singh & Anr. - Case No. 169/2010. 13 In short, the
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property is a settled possession,
however with a looming threat of the defendants dispossessing the
plaintiffs being real and the factum of defendants being in possession of
the suit property is fractured and on a very weak footing.