K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's writ petition against the judgment of the second appellate court dated 10-5-1983.
(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite parties filed a suit under sections 59/180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against the defendants petitioners on the allegations that the plaintiffs were occupancy tenants of the plots in suit and that the defendant was a Sajhi, but got certain revenue entries in his favour, hence asserting possession over the disputed land ; therefore, the necessity for the suit. The defence in the case was that the defendant had been in possession for more than 12 years continously ; therefore, the defendant had acquired tenancy right in the disputed land. The defendant had also claimed tenancy right on the basis of settlement of paying rent to the plaintiffs. He had denied that he was either servant or Sajhi of the plaintiffs and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiffs as is evident from the issues framed in the suit. The trial court through its judgment dated 19-8-1970 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. In appeal the defendant partly succeeded and his appeal was allowed with regard to plot no. 3048/4 and 3074/1, but it was dismissed with regard to plot no. 3074/2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the defendant preferred a cross-objection. The second appellate court has allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and has dismissed the defendant's cross-objection through its judgment dated 10-5-1983. Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court the defendant has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the second appellate court has patently erred in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court and that it has patently erred in recording finding within four corners of the rulings mentioned in its judgment without discussing the evidence on record, hence its judgment should be quashed. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners who are descendants of the defendant Bhoora is that if the disputed plots were under water due to flood for a few days the continuity of trespass would not be broken as held by the first appellate court, but the second appellate court in the circumstances of the present case has patently erred in interfering with the findings of fact.;