PARTAP SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit against the appellant Partap Singh for the declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute. The plea on which this relief was claimed is that they had become owners of this land by adverse possession of more than 12 years. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence accepted and their plea and decreed the suit. The first appeal carried by Partap Singh was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 20.9.1976. The Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court have been appealed against in the instant second appeal.

(2.) Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff-respondent have acquired ownership over the land in dispute by adverse possession of more than 2 years. It is essentially a pure finding of fact which is normally unassailable in second appeal. The learned appellant, counsel contended that in the instant case the finding of fact calls for interference because this finding has been arrived at one the misinterpretation of the entries in the revenue records. With help of the learned counsel, I have gone through all the revenue entries produced on the record but I am unable to agreewith the learned counsel that aforesaid finding of fact is based on any misinterpretation of the same.

(3.) The respondents had produced the Jamabandis of the dispute land starting from 1952-53. The first Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 is Exhibit P1/A. Therein Bachan Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in mentioned to be in possession in his own rights without payment of rent to any one. The words used are "Ghair" Maroosi Bila Segan Tassawar Malkiat Khud." This entry was repeated in the Jamabandis of 1957-58 (Exhibit P-2), 1961-62 (Exhibit P.3 & 1967.68 (Exhibit P.4). It is not dispute that after the death of Bachan Singh, the plaintiffs are in possession of this land being his sons and daughters. Thus according to the jamabandi entries the respondent's predecessor has been shown to be consistently in adverse possession of the land ever since 1952-53. The respondents filed a suit for declaration on 4.12.1972 and as such their ownership by adverse possession stand fully established.