' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit brought by the petitioners which was dismissed by the trial Court. The decree of the trial Court was maintained by the Additional District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in the second appeal.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land. In the revenue record, till 1907, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were shown to be the owners of the land in dispute.
However in that year the entries in the revenue record were changed and instead Ahmad Din, predecessor-ininterest of the respondent, was mentioned as the owner thereof. The case of the petitioners was that the alterations in the revenue record were based on fraud and misrepresentation and as such they were not bound by them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the original revenue record has since been destroyed. It cannot therefore be said why the entries in the revenue record were altered. However that may be, it has not been disputed that since 1907 the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest have been consistently shown as the owners of the land in dispute. There is also no evidence that they had in the intervening period paid any batai to the petitioners. A presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. This presumption gets further strengthened when the entries therein remain unchallenged for more than half a century. It was for the petitioners to rebut this presumption. They took the plea of fraud and misrepresentation but were unable to substantiate it.
We would therefore dismiss this petition.