HEMAN AND OTHERS Vs. TULSI RAM (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondents filed the present suit for possession of agricultural land claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit land It was alleged that the defendants had cone on this land as tenants at will under them and had been paying Batai; their lease had been renewed every year under the plaintiffs and the defendants kept paying rent regularly to the plaintiffs. When they defaulted in the payment of rent from Kharif 1963 to Rabi 1964, an application under section 14 -A of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act seeking their ejectment was filed In these proceedings, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed themselves to be the owners of the land in suit. In the written statement it was pleaded that the defendants are the owners of the suit land and in the alternative they are the owners by adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - -

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court as it was held that the defendants were the owners of the suit land. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rebutting evidence, the' plaintiffs have been able to establish the ownership over the suit land. The other issues were also decided against the defendants Consequently the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same the defendants have come up in second appeal in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court has given very cogent reasons in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in dispute. The lower appellate Court has reversed the said finding arbitrarily and without discussing the entire evidence and, therefore, the same is vitiated in second appeal. He also referred to copy of the order Exhibit D -3 passed in appeal under the proceedings under Section 14 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, wherein certain observations were made that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants were the tenants on the land indispute.