Niamatullah, J - (1.)This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff- respondents for recovery of possession of a piece of land shown in red and marked A in a plan accompanying the plaint. The reliefs of injunction and damages are also claimed. The plaintiffs were originally tenants in the village in which the land in dispute is situate. They appear to have had cultivation at a fairly large scale. The defendants are non-resident zamindars of part of the village. About ten years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs purchased a small share in mahal Bhawani Baksh Singh, which is one of the three mahals into which the whole village is divided. The defendants have also a small share in mahal Bhawani Bakhsh Singh, besides being the owners of the remaining two mahals, namely, mahal Khet Singh and mahal Phaldan Singh. The plaintiffs do not appear to have ever been the tenants of the defendants. They held a small area as subtenants from one of the defendants, tenants. This sub-tenancy came to an end about a year before the institution of the present case. The case, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute for a very long time past and they have used it as their threshing floor, as a place for storage of rubbish (ghur), as their courtyard and for certain other purposes. The plaintiffs claim their possession to have been of a proprietary character. What led to the institution of the suit, according to the plaintiffs, was active interference by the defendants in their enjoyment of the land.
(2.)The defence, to which the defendants eventually settled down, was a denial of the plaintiffs possession, or enjoyment of any kind, of the land in dispute.
(3.)No documentary evidence was produced by either of the parties. The witnesses examined by the parties supported the case of continued possession of one party or the other. Both the Courts below have believed the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs, their finding being that the plaintiffs have for a considerably long time used this land as a threshing floor and as land for storage of rubbish (ghur) and cow-dung cakes. The plaintiffs suit for possession has been decreed on that finding. The defendants have preferred this second appeal.