Revenue records and title finality establish possession, entitling owners to permanent injunction against unsubstantiated claims of partition.

The Appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land in Survey No. 417, Block No. 410, village Panikhadak

They claimed ownership via mutation entry No. 327 and stated a portion was donated for a school

The Respondents (defendants) contested the suit, claiming a 1/2 share through an alleged oral partition and asserting actual possession

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 30th April 2003, relying on admissions of the defendants' possession made by the plaintiffs in separate criminal proceedings

The Appellants challenged this dismissal, relying on a 1999 Mamlatdar order (RTS Case No. 2 of 1999) which had cancelled the defendants’ names from revenue records after finding no evidence of their title or legal possession

1. Whether the plaintiffs successfully proved their title and possession of the suit land to entitle them to a permanent injunction

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in relying on statements from criminal proceedings to determine the issue of possession in a civil suit

The court applied Section 96 of the CPC regarding the wide powers of a First Appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence

It relied on Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the grant of perpetual injunctions when a defendant invades a plaintiff's right to property

Under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, revenue records were treated as public documents carrying a presumption of correctness, as affirmed in State of Haryana v. Amin Lal

The court further applied the principle that "possession follows title" in the absence of evidence to the contrary

The High Court found that the Trial Court's reliance on criminal court documents (Exh. 143) to determine civil possession was "wholly misplaced," as criminal findings are not conclusive in civil Title disputes

The court analyzed the Mamlatdar’s 1999 order (Exh. 126), which explicitly held that the defendants had no right, title, or interest in the land and ordered the removal of their names from revenue records—an order that remained unchallenged and attained finality

A fresh status report from the Mamlatdar (dated 19.04.2026) confirmed that the plaintiffs were in actual physical possession of the residences and agricultural land on the suit block

Since the defendants admitted in cross-examination that no mutation entry supported their "partition" theory, the court concluded the plaintiffs held both title and subsequent possession

The court held that the plaintiffs proved their ownership and the defendants failed to establish any legal right or partition

The court granted the declaration of the plaintiffs' rights and a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property

No order as to costs was made