DONGAR SINGH Vs. JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1649 of 1695 of 1976, as both of them arise out of the one judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, Gurgaon, dated August 31, 1976.

(2.) Two suits were filed with respect to the same property. In Dongar Singh v. Chhater Bhuj and others, Civil Suit No. 553 of 1972, it has been alleged that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land since 1951-52 as ghair maurusi ba shrah malkan bila lagan bawaja zabardasti. It was alleged that on a perusal of the revenue record, the plaintiff found that he was entered as a ghair maurusi on payment of chakota of Rs. 50/- per year to the owner, therein, which was incorrect. According to him, he never cultivated the suit land on payment of chakota; rather he had been in cultivating possession thereof for more than 12 years forcibly, openly, continuously and in denial of the title of the defendant who was recorded as the owner without payment of any rent to him and thus had become the owner thereof by adverse possession. The other Jai Narain v. Dongar Singh, Civil suit No. 76 of 1973, was also filed on identical averments. Both the suits were consolidated vide order dated September 11, 1973 of the trial Court and were decided by the common judgment dated January 14, 1976 of the trial Court in Suit No. 76 of 1973. In the written statement filed in civil suit No. 553 of 1972, the pleas raised on behalf of Dongar Singh, plaintiff, were controverted, and it was pleaded that the defendants were the owners of the suit land. Both the Courts below, after discussing the entire evidence have concurrently found that Dongar Singh, plaintiff, had failed to prove that he had become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in any case, it has been found that Dongar Singh was the tenant on the suit land earlier and, therefore, he could not be dispossessed therefrom. I do not find any merit in this contention. There was so found by the Courts below in order to negative the contention of the appellant where he had pleaded that he had become the owner by adverse possession. According to the appellant, he was never a tenant and the entries in the revenue record in this behalf were wrong and therefore, he claimed himself to be the owner by adverse possession of the suit land. As observed earlier, this plea has been negatived by both the Courts below. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal.