Unauthorized deletion of rent entries in revenue records does not rebut the presumption of tenancy.

The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a suit for possession of land, demolition of structures, and mesne profits, claiming their ancestor Niku had migrated to Kullu and appointed a neighbor, Dhaniya (defendants’ ancestor), as a caretaker (Rakhwala)

The defendants contested, asserting they were non-occupancy tenants who became owners by operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act

Revenue records from 1954-1963 initially showed Dhaniya as a tenant paying 1/4th produce as rent (Gallabatai), but later entries deleted the rent details without explanation

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, finding that a tenancy existed rather than a caretaker arrangement

Whether the Courts below erroneously held the defendants to be tenants despite an alleged failure to prove tenancy via a formal application

Whether the Courts below misconstrued the revenue documents Ext.P1 to P4

The court applied the principle that a presumption of truth attaches to revenue entries under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (as applicable to H.P.), but this presumption is rebuttable if a change in entries was made unauthorizedly or without following due process

Relying on Shyam Lal v. Johli [para 16] and Harbans Singh v. State of H.P. [para 19], the court held that any change in rights, rents, or possession in the Khasra Girdawari must involve notice to the affected party and an inquiry by a Revenue Officer as per the Land Records Manual

Further, the court applied the doctrine from Durga v. Milkhi Ram that later revenue entries stand rebutted if the alteration was made mistakenly or without material justification

The Court observed that earlier records (Ext.P3 and Ext.P4) explicitly recorded Dhaniya as a non-occupancy tenant paying rent

The subsequent deletion of the rent column in later jamabandis was deemed illegal because there was no evidence of a reported arrangement or an inquiry by revenue authorities before the change

Applying the cited precedents, the Court held that the unauthorized deletion of "rent" did not extinguish the tenancy status.

Regarding the plaintiffs' "caretaker" theory, the Court found the oral evidence of PW3 and PW4 contradictory and unreliable, noting they could not even agree on who was present during the alleged agreement

Conversely, the defendants' long-standing possession and the construction of three houses on the land supported the conclusion of a tenancy rather than a mere watchman role

The Court affirmed that the revenue entries (Ext. P1-P4) were correctly interpreted to reflect a tenancy that was not validly altered by subsequent administrative omissions

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendants were tenants and the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession