Krishan vs Chhajju, deceased represented by his legal representatives Smt. Parbhi and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Defendant''s second appeal against whom the suit for possesion of agricultural land has been decreed by both the Courts below.

The Plaintiff-respondent Chhaju (now deceased) filed the suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 4 Kanals, alleging that he was the owner of the suit land, having purchased the same u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (briefly the Act) Vide order dated 30-6-1955, Ex. P1. It was also alleged that Mangal (deceased) father of three Defendants was in possession of the above said land as a tenant and used to pay Batai to the Plaintiff upto Kharif, 1971, but after that, he stopped paying the same. The Plaintiff then filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent in which Mangal denied the title of the Plaintiff and thereafter, he filed a regular suit for the recovery of Batai which was pending. In was further alleged that Mangal had alleged himself to be the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession on the basis of the entry in the revenue record which was got made with the collusion of the Patwari to the effect that Mangal was in possession "Bena Lagan Bawhwaj tene Bai" According to the Plaintiff, as a matter of fact, the land was never purchased by Mangal Hence, the present suit was filed on 30-8-1978. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land and the Defendants were owners thereof. The factum of the purchase of the suit land u/s 18 of the Act by the Plaintiff was denied The payment of any Batai to the Plaintiff was also denied. It was pleaded that the entries in the Jama-bandi were correct and since Mangal their father and the Defendants were in occupation of the suit land since 1960 and they were cultivating the same openly and adversely to every body, including the Plaintiff, their possession had ripened into ownership. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit land, whereas the plea of the Defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession was negatived. As a result of this finding, the Plaintiff''s suit was decreed In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendants have filed this second appeal in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that from the entries in the revenue record, since the Jamabandi for the year 1961-62, the Defendants are shown in cultivating possession without payment of any Lagan and the possession was on account of the purchase. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, from the entries in the revenue record and the fact that in the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, Ex. P. 6, Mangal was shown as a tenant on the suit land; it was amply proved that the Defendants had become owners by adverse possession. According to the Learned Counsel, the finding of the Courts below in this behalf are wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, reference was made to Lachhu Ram v. Dharam Kaur 1981 P.L.J. 123.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the Defendants have failed to prove that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. Primarily, this is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. There is nothing on the record to show that except the entries in the revenue record, there was no overt-act on the part of the Defendants to prove that they ever claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land. It is in the statement of the Plaintiff that the Defendants have been paying Batai till Kharif 1971, but, subsequently, the Defendants refused to pay the Batai. Hence, the litigation started between the parties. This statement of the Plaintiff has been accepted by both the Courts below. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present ease, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.