The suit was resisted by the appellants with the companynter claim that they, and number respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27 7 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S. No.
Apart from the oral evidence there is numbermaterial on the record which may indicate the falsity of any of the entries in the revenue records and we are of the opinion that the lower companyrts were fully justified in relying on them.
The decrees passed by the companyrts below proceed on the basis of evidence to the effect that the name of respondent No.
P. 2 to P. 7 .
P. 1 and companysistently thereafter till the year 1968 Khasragirdawaris Exs.
1 was recorded as a tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1959 60 Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1, were in possession of the land on the relevant date as tenants inasmuch as it had been leased out to them by their vendor Kanti Prasad two years prior to the sale, i.e., in the year 1965.
2 to 4 through a registered sale deed dated September 29, 1967.
Hardayal Hardy and B. Datta, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated July 27, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the decrees passed by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt in a suit for possession by way of pre emption of the land in dispute in favour of plaintiff respondent No.
1 on the ground that he was a tenant of the disputed land when it was sold to the appellants by respondents Nos.
2150 of 1970.
737/70 Harbans Singh for the Appellant.
