RAI SINGH Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the learned courts below, hence, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number(s), and, the defendant becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, assail, the, concurrent verdicts made against him, through, his instituting the extant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court.

(2.) When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 22.05.2009, admitted the appeal instituted, by, the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Uncontrovertedly, the plaintiffs/respondents are recorded owners, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, qua, wherewith, hence, concurrent decree(s), of, possession, became rendered, rather against the aggrieved defendant. The aggrieved defendant, has not, contested the validity of entries, as, occur in the revenue records, and, as appertain to the suit khasra numbers, wherein(s), in the column of ownership, the plaintiffs/respondents, are, echoed, to be, owners of the suit land. However, he contends, that, with the revenue records appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, and, respectively borne, in, the jamabandis appertaining therewith, and, as, embodied respectively in Ex.P1 to Ex.P-3 & Ex. D1 to Ext. D-6, rather making graphic unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the defendants, in, the column of possession thereof, being echoed, as, "Kabiz", (i) and, also with the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiff one Magar Singh, making a signatured statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade concerned, whereunder, he acquiesced, to, the validity of the afore entries, borne, in the revenue record concerned, (ii) thereupon, the afore acceptance(s) by the predecessor-in-interest, of, the plaintiffs/respondents, also carrying, a, further connotation, vis-a-vis, the defendant becoming empowered, to, contend qua his also holding, a, valid title, as, owner, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (iii) besides, his holding valid empowerments to contest the decree of possession, as stands, hence, concurrently rendered against him. However, the afore made contention before this Court, would become accepted, by this Court, upon, evidence becoming adduced, (iv) vis-avis, in contemporaneity, to, the occurrences, in, the apposite revenue record, of, the afore acquiesced entries, rather the defendant tendering rather rent in cash, or, in kind to the landlord/owner, of, the suit land, (a) and, whereupon, this Court, would draw, a further conclusion qua the afore entered status, of, the defendant, in, the revenue record, as, a "Kabiz" also clothing him, with, a further concomitant statutory bestowment, hence, appertaining, to, conferment, of, proprietary rights, becoming bestowed, upon, him, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, (b) and, thereupon also the statutory acquisition, of, afore proprietary rights, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number(s), also hence leveraging the plaintiff, to, validly contest, the, plaintiffs' suit, for possession, anvilled, upon, theirs being recorded owners thereof. However, the afore evidence is grossly amiss besides therealongwith, hence, the defendant neither claiming nor proving qua his acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, through, adverse possession, hence, the concurrently recorded decrees, of, possession, as, rendered against him, are rather valid on all fronts.