The claim of the plaintiffs was that they along with defendant No.
The only point involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was right in holding that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the presumption under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 had been rebutted.
Milkhi Ram and Others, plaintiffs, respondents before us, filed a suit for possession of 52 Kanals of land situate in village Ratewal on the ground that this land had been wrongly allotted to defendants 1 and 2 during companysolidation proceedings on account of shamlat land in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos.
3 had 2/3rd share in the shamlat land in dispute pertaining to these Khasra numbers.
The facts in brief are as follows.
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh Grover, J. dismissing the appeal of the appellants, Durga and Others hereinafter referred to as the defendants.
2786 and 2806.
