RASUL LONE Vs. GHANI MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in this reference to the Full Bench is as follows: - "Whether the entity of Naqdi Hasab Partah Deh appearing in the column of tenant prima facie and per se proves that the person in possession was hold ­ing adversely to the owner."

(2.) THE plaintiffs had brought a suit for a declaration that they were owners of the land in dispute, having acquired title by adverse possession against the owner and prayed for an injunction restraining the owner from interfering with their possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court which accepted the allegations of the plaintiffs, but on appeal the District Judge Anantnag accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the plain ­tiffs suit, holding that there was no question of adverse possession and that the entry Hasab Partah Deh would not indicate that the plaintiffs were in adverse possession. When this matter was heard by me and Jalal -ud -Din J. reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant on a Division Bench decision of this court in Ahmad Wani V. Lassu Ganai, 1967 KLJ 135 wherein their Lordships observed in passing that an entry Hasab Partah Deh is prima facie proof of adverse possession. In this connection Bhat J. who spoke for the Court observed as follows: - "...... and that possession is shown as Hasab Partah Deh which means that the plaintiffs did not recognize anybody other than themselves as the owners of this land and therefore paid the land revenue direct to the Numberdar."

(3.) ALTHOUGH their Lordships held that on the facts and evidence adverse possession was proved, yet they have clearly observed that an entry shown as Hasab partah Deh clearly proves the fact that the tenant did not recognize anybody other than himself as the owner of the land. It is the effect of this observation that is being questioned before us in the Full Bench. It, however, appears that there is complete identity of view with respect to the legal position amongst the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Both of them have contended that the observations made by the Division Bench were wrong in law and there was no warrant for holding that the entry Hasab Partah Deh per se indicated that the tenant had started prescribing by adverse possession, or had in any way started denying the title of his landlord. Mr. Bhan appearing for the appellant relied on two authorities : Amjad Ali V. Ghafoor Mohd. Khan, AIR 1935 All. 76 and Girdhari Ram Vs. Qasim, AIR 1936 Lahore 461. In Amjad Alis case (Supra) Niamatullah J. (as he then was) in almost similar circum ­stances observed as follows: - "In the absence of other evidence, the entry in the khasra would have been taken to be prima facie evidence of the fact that such occupier is a tenant, as he is recorded."