Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a piece of land specified in the plaint. Though the suit had originally been filed on the basis of general title, through the statement under Order X, R. 2, C. P. C. the plaintiffs confined the case to title based on possession. The statement is to the effect that the plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of possession and possession only. The land is near a temple and the plaintiff is the deity. It was claimed by the plaintiff that it was in possession over this land since more than 12 years prior to its dispossession by defendants 1 and 2. The defence, on the other hand, was that the plaintiff has not acquired any title over this land by being in possession over it for the period required by law.
(2.) The trial court held that the plaintiff was not in possession for a period sufficient to make it ripen into title before it was dispossessed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2; it also accepted the defendants case that Zamindar was the owner of the land and had executed a lease in respect of it in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On these findings the trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have come up in appeal to challenge the decree.
(3.) Before the present suit was instituted the plaintiff had filed a suit under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act on the ground that the plaintiff was dispossessed within six months of the suit. This suit was dismissed on the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession over the land within six months of the suit and had been dispossessed at least as long back as in January 1960. After the dismissal of the suit under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the present suit was instituted on 12th April 1961.;