' Qazi Muhammad Sadiq son of Qazi Muhammad Saeed (since dead--his L.Rs, impleaded) of Sikandarpur Haripur brought a suit against Sadiq and Latif (since dead--his L.Rs, impleaded) sons of Abdul Aziz, for possession based on title of Khasra No,897 measuring 6 Marlas situated in village Sikandarpur.
2. The plaint, in nutshell was that the plaintiff being an owner and the defendants being tenants- at-will had suddenly started some construction over the disputed land in the month of August, 1989, taking advantage of summer vacations and thereby denying the title of the rightful owner.
3. The crux of the written statement was that the title of the plaintiffs remained yet to be proved and in case such title is proved and the title of the defendants is not proved, they were in the adverse possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and hence the suit was barred by time.
4. After holding a trial the learned Civil Judge-I, Haripur vide his judgment dated 28-5-1994 not- suited the plaintiff. In appeal, the learned District Judge, on 15-10-1995 reversed the findings of the Trial Court and granted a decree for possession to the plaintiff. Sadiq and others, the defendants have come up in revision.
5. The proven facts of the case, through Revenue Record since the time calculable, are that the plaintiff is decidedly an owner while the petitioners-defendants are decidedly the tenants-at-will.
The latter derive advantage from the rent column of Jamabandi where they are shown to have not been paying rent under the impression that either they are occupancy tenants or owners. Columns of rent bear entries like "bila-lagan-batakrar-e-dakhilkari", "bila-lagan-batasawar-e-dakhilkari" and "bila-lagan-ba-tassawar-e-malkiat".
6. It is by now a settled principle of law and may be reiterated once again that whenever there is a conflict between the column of cultivation and column of rent in the Jamabandi, the entry in the column of cultivation is bound to prevail. In the wake of such emphatic legal position, one feels the least of hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs are the owners and the defendants are the tenants over the suit property.
7. Mr. Niaz Muhammad Khan learned Civil Judge has no doubt applied his mind and has tried to distinguish the situation by holding that though the principle of law prefers an entry in the column of cultivation yet the circumstances of the present case, in his view, were so compelling that it proved that the tenancy had terminated and the defendants were in the adverse possession of the property and so keeping in view the duration of such entries, the suit of the plaintiff was time- barred.
8. The learned Civil Judge seemed to be swayed by a few entries in the Revenue Record, in that in the Jamabandi of 1935-36 Sadiq and Latif defendants were shown to be the tenants but the tenancy terminated when in the Jamabandi of 1939-40 the property happened to be self- cultivated ("khud-kasht") and again in the Jamabandi of 1942-43 Sadiq and Latif emerged again as tenants-at-will without payment of rent under the impression of title i,e, "bila-lagan- batassaware-malkiet" . This break of entry has impressed the learned Trial Judge.
9. The factual position is that owing to some partition this property had fallen to the lot of a landlady Mst. Zubaida Khanum who obviously could not have cultivated the property herself and thus the entry about tenancy of Sadiq and Latif again continued thereafter. It was never a case of surrender of possession through surrender of tenancy and the same tenants continued as ever under the same impression that gleaned from column of rent.
10. In every case of surrender of such possession it is bound to be proved by the tenant that he surrendered the tenancy as well and thereafter re-possessed the land either under a rightful claim or under an adverse claim. Factually this aspect of the case stands not at all proved by the tenants and there are only the entries simplicitor that they attempt to derive benefit from.
11. This being the factual position, another aspect of the case is, that through the Jamabandi of 1942-43 the tenants have made the least improvement. Even if we considered such entries to have had appeared for the first time still they give rise to the same controversy, as to what would be the legal position if there is a conflict between column of cultivation and column of rent. Jamabandi 1942-43, as such, also carries the same conflict, the solution whereof is that the entry in the column of cultivation shall always prevail. Even in such column of cultivation the petitioners/defendants are categorically entered to be tenants-atwill.
12. Thus, the view adopted by the learned District Judge was correct and does not require to be interferred with.
13. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.