1. DORAB PATEL, J.-- The appellants are the legal heirs of one Mehrab Shah. In the events that happened, the plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Nowshera against Mehrab Shah on the ground that he had, in collusion with the Revenue staff, fraudulently got his name inserted in the Revenue records as being in possession of the land in dispute in the suit without payment of Lagan. It was also alleged in this plaint that Mehrab Shah was a 'tenant of the plaintiffs-respondents and had falsely started denying their title. Mehrab Shah contested the suit, but it is relevant to point out that the only plea taken by him in his written statement was that he had acquired title to the land in dispute by adverse possession.
2. One of the plaintiffs, Sharbat Khan, examined himself in support of the claim in the suit and produced the Revenue records to show that the land in dispute had belonged to the plaintiffs and Sharbat Khan further stated in his evidence "the entries in the Revenue records as Bela Lagan have been made by the Patwari with the collusion of the defendant". Mehrab Shah in his evidence totally abandoned the plea of adverse possession, which was the only plea taken by him in his written statement, and instead he claimed that the land in dispute was ancestral land which he had inherited on the death of his father. In this connection he further said "after the death of my father, the inheritance mutation was attested in the name of his sons including myself." Despite this claim about the inheritance mutation, Mehrab Shah did not produce any documentary evidence, but he examined to other witnesses who supported his claim that he was in possession of the suit land.
3. In this state of evidence, it is not surprising that the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar, who finally heard the suit, allowed it by his judgment. Dated 27-10-1969. In decreeing the suit, the learned Judge observed: "The defendant primarily placed his reliance on the entries of column of Lagan. It is well-settled now that the entries of the column of Lagan, otherwise not corroborated by any evidence, cannot take precedence over the entries of the column of cultiva--tion. "
4. We would pause to state here that these observations state the correct law, therefore, the learned Judge rejected the oral evidence produced by Mehrab Shah and accepted evidence of the Revenue records produced by Sharbat Khan, which clearly showed that the respondents were shown as owners in the column of cultivation in the Revenue records. However, although the learned Civil Judge rejected Mehrab Shah's claim of title, he accepted his claim that he had effected improvements on the land, therefore, whilst ordering his eviction, he directed the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs.3,000 as compensation to Mehrab Shah for the improvements made by him on the suit land.
5. Mehrab Shah challenged this judgment in an appeal in the District Court, Peshawar and the plaintiffs-respondents filed cross-objections against the award of compensation to Mehrab Shah.
6. But, after carefully examining the evidence, the learned District Judge dismissed Mehrab Shah's appeal as well as the cross-objections of the plaintiffs--respondents.
7. Mehrab Shah challenged the judgment of the learned District Judge in a second appeal in the Peshawar High Court, whilst the plaintiffs-respondents filed cross-objections against the rejection of their cross-objections by the District Judge. But, a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court dismissed their cross-objections, as well as the appeal of Mehrab Shah by this judgment dated 25- 5-1971.
8. Finally, for the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient to state that Mehrab Shah then filed a petition for leave in this Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Courts below had ignored the Jamabandis which had been exhibited in the case. -Leave was granted and as Mehrab Shah died during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were impleaded as his legal heirs and we would briefly examine the arguments of Mr. Naqashband, who appeared on their behalf.
9. As in the Courts below, Mr. Naqashband relied on the fact that the case of the appellants was supported by the entries in the column of Lagan. But as we indicated earlier, we agree with the view taken by the trial Court that the entries in the column of cultivation take precedence over the entries in the column of Lagan, and, therefore, the burden was on Mehrab Shah to produce evidence in support of his defence. Now, instead of producing proper evidence, he abandoned the plea of adverse possession taken by him in his written statement and advanced a totally different plea, namely, that he had inherited the suit land from his father. But, although he claimed to have effected the mutation of inheritance, he did not even produce this mutation, therefore, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/--respondents, and there was no merit in the appeals filed by Mehrab Shah, deceased, in the Sessions Court and in the High Court.
10. Learned counsel feebly attempted to argue that the Courts below had misread the evidence, but he abandoned this plea, when we invited him to refer us to the documentary evidence produced by Mehrab Shah. There is no such evidence and the Courts below rightly rejected the oral evidence.
11. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs. ,