GURPAL SINGH Vs. RAM RAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Gurpal Singh, who was defendant before the trial court, having loss in the trial court and first appellate Court, as in this second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy few facts may be noticed:

(3.) One Bholu was a non -occupancy tenant of the land, subject matter of dispute. After his death he was succeeded by his three sons Dhani Ram, Ghungar and Polho. Plaintiffs Ram Rakha and Parma Nand are successor -in -interest of Ghungar. Respondents No.1 and 2 in this appeal and the defendants are successors of Dhani Ram and Polho Ram. Admittedly all the three sons Ghungar, Dhani Ram and Polho Ram succeeded tenancy rights of Polho in equal shares and were co -tenants to the extent of 1/3"1 share each. In the Jamabandi for the year 1950 -51 Dhani Ram was shown to be as non -occupancy tenant to the extent of 1/3* share whereas Ghungar and Polho were shown non -occupancy tenants to the extent of 2/3rt share, in other words each one of them was non -occupancy tenant of 1/3* share. Some entries appeared in the settlement Jamabandies for the year 1961 -62 and 1065 -66. In the Jamabandi for the year 1970 -71 (Ex.D -4) name of Ghungar the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff was deleted in the column of cultivation as non -occupancy tenant and the land in dispute was shown in occupation of Dhani Ram, Udho Ram sons of Beli Ram to the extent of !4 share and other half share in the name of Kashmir Singh and Gurdial Singh sons of Polho.