MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 1 7.12.1 984 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents, In the plaint it was stated that si^it land measuring 4-Kanals, 18 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 1180, described in the plaint, is in possession of the petitioner which he got from his father by way of inheritance and his right having matured as that of ownership by adverse possession. He complained that the respondents have got the entries in the Revenue Record changed and he has been recorded as non-occupancy., tenant of the respondents liable to pay produce rent. He sought a declaration that he is an owner-in-possession of the said land. The suit was contested by the respondents who denied the said allegations. Issues were framed and the evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1989. The first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned ADJ, Chakwal on 25.3.1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said charge of entries is in violation of the provisions of the land Records Manual. According to the learned counsel since his client is entered- in the column of Lagaan as " ^ ($ , '[(urdu text)] -his possession is adverse to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that his clients are the owners of the land and mere non-payment of Lagaan for any length of time by the petitioner would not render his possession to be adverse.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The oldest revenue record available on record is Jamabandi for the year 1939-40 Ex. P.2, Now according to this document respondents or their predecessors are recorded to be occupancy tenants in the column of possession while one Nawab s/o Shehbaz is recorded as non-occupancy tenan [(urdu text)] The column of Lagaan narrates The name of the petitioner (Akbar s/o Arib) finds mention in column of possession in Ex. P.3 (Jamabandi for the year 1951- 52) as a non- occupancy tenant. The column of Lagaan is to the similar effect. With effect from Ex. P.4, Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, said occupancy tenants became owners and came to be recorded as "Hisa Dar" in possession and petitioner as their nonoccupancy tenant paying half share produce thereafter the entries continued.
4. The. Portion that stands borne out from the record is that the respondents or their predecessors- in- interest were occupancy tenants in the land, under Section 114, CPC upon extinguishing of . Said tenancy they became owners and were recorded as such in Jamabandi 1955-56. While the petitioner came to be recorded as non-occupancy tenant paying half share of produce.
5. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel even if it is assumed that the said entries in the revenue record continued, the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of interpreting the said periodical records is that presumption of correctness attatches only to column No. 3 of ownership and column No. 4 of possession and column No. 9 of Lagaan is not to take precedence over any of said columns 4 unless and untill its entries are independently proved by the person who claims benefit of the same. Reference be made to the case of Shah Muhammad v. Khan Poor (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 91). There is nothing in record that the petitioner acquired title of said land. He is continuously being recorded as a nonoccupancy tenant in columns of possession and the only fact that he has not been paying any rent to the respondents would not make his possession adverse to them. Needless to state that title stands vested in the respondents by operation of said law (Section 114 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1867). There is yet another aspect of the matter. As noted by me above the said respondents were occupancy tenants in this land. Now it is settled that even if recorded owners of the land take over possession, the occupancy tenancy does not extinguish unless and until abandonment is proved in terms of Section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1867.
6. For all that has been discussed above, I do not find any ground being made out for interference with the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below within the meaning of Section 114, CPC. The Civil Revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.