Revenue Entries Alone Do Not Create Tenancy - Oral Claims Are No Substitute for Legal Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“No Substantial Question of Law When Tenancy is Built Only on Words, Not Documents,” In a crucial ruling that reaffirms the principle that “possession must flow from lawful title or proven tenancy, not from mere oral claims”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 1st July 2025 dismissed a second appeal filed by the legal heirs of Desh Raj, who had staked claim to agricultural land by asserting that their family had cultivated it for over 70 years as tenants.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Alka Sarin emphatically held, “When the plaintiffs themselves admit they are neither the owners nor the tenants, the claim for permanent injunction collapses on its face. Oral assertions, unbacked by documentary evidence, cannot ripen into legal possession.”

The Court rejected the appeal outright, observing that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law, and that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court required no interference.

The suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellants had already been dismissed by the Trial Court on 5th August 2016, which simultaneously decreed the counterclaim of the defendants, declaring them owners in possession of the suit property. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court on 5th December 2019.

The High Court judgment now brings the litigation to an end, confirming that incorrect revenue entries cannot override ownership rights when no tenancy or legal possession is proved.

“Possession Without Origin Is Legally Void”—Court Dismantles the Claim of Oral Tenancy

The dispute arose over Khewat No.208/193 Khatoni No.239, Khasra No.604/1, measuring 0-8 biswas, situated in Mauza Teekli, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Desh Raj, had approached the courts claiming that their family had been cultivating the land since the time of their ancestors as ‘Gair Mourusi’ (tenants-at-will).

They asserted that the ancestors of the defendants had verbally promised them permanent cultivation rights and assured they would never be evicted. On the strength of this, they sought a permanent injunction to restrain the landowners from dispossessing them.

But the defendants categorically denied every claim. They asserted ownership and possession, arguing that the land was not even agricultural and that they had fenced it and installed a gate. The defendants further challenged the revenue records, asserting that any mention of the plaintiffs in the column of possession was patently incorrect, fabricated, and legally irrelevant.

The Trial Court found merit in the defendants’ position, holding that the revenue entries were erroneous and could not create tenancy rights, and further issued a decree in their favour, restraining the plaintiffs from interfering in the land.

“Admissions Made in the Witness Box Destroy the Plaintiffs’ Own Case”—High Court Cites Self-Defeating Testimony

Justice Alka Sarin pointed directly to a critical moment in the trial when Desh Raj, who appeared as PW1, conceded in cross-examination that, “We are not the owners of the suit property”, and more damningly admitted, “We are not tenants on the suit property.”

The Court observed, “This admission alone demolishes the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim. When a party denies being either the owner or the tenant, their suit for protection of possession cannot survive.”

Adding further weight to this observation, the Court noted that Desh Raj candidly admitted he had not visited the suit property for more than a year. The plaintiffs’ counsel struggled to explain how possession could be claimed in the face of such an admission.

“Revenue Entries Alone Do Not Create Tenancy”—Court Rejects Attempt to Turn Clerical Errors into Legal Rights

Justice Sarin underscored a key legal principle, stating, “Mere entries in revenue records, particularly in the column of possession, are not conclusive of ownership or tenancy rights. They are evidence of possession but do not by themselves establish legal entitlement.”

The Court noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had correctly concluded that the documents placed on record, namely Exhibits P-1 to P-14, did not show the plaintiffs as tenants. The plaintiffs had produced no rent receipts, no lease agreements, and no documentary proof of induction as tenants.

In fact, the Court emphasized, “Except for their oral assertions, there was nothing to show how the plaintiffs ever came into possession, let alone maintained it lawfully.”

“Promise Not to Evict Without Proof Is Legally Meaningless”—High Court Rejects Oral Assurances Argument

The plaintiffs had also advanced an argument that the defendants' ancestors had made a verbal assurance that they would never be evicted. Justice Sarin dismissed this submission categorically, observing, “A mere oral promise without any written agreement, without any entry recording tenancy rights, cannot override the legal ownership of the defendants.”

The judgment stressed that the law does not recognize vague, generational oral promises unless backed by formal evidence or acknowledged tenancy arrangements.

“No Substantial Question of Law Exists When Facts Are Conclusively Against the Appellants”

Summing up, the High Court held, “In the absence of any evidence establishing the plaintiffs as tenants or lawful possessors, the challenge fails both on facts and law. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.”

The Court further declared, “The judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer from no infirmity whatsoever. The appeal is entirely devoid of merit and is dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 1st July 2025