A.K. Goel, J. - (1.) The appellant -plaintiff filed suit for possession alleging that the shops in question belonged to the plaintiff -Gurdwara and the defendant had forcibly taken possession there of in June, 1978. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was proved to be owner of the suit property. The appellate court reversed the decree of the trial Court. It was held that the entry relied upon by the plaintiff in Jamanbandi Ex. P8 did not relate to the shops in dispute and the entries in the Municipal Assessment register could not prove the title.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the documents Ex. P3 to P5 with regard to sanction of plan for construction and documents showing assessment of house tax by the Municipality duly proved the title of the Gurdwara. He further submitted that as per revenue record also, the suit land belonged to the Gurudwara. It is also submitted that inference of title of the Gurdwara should also be drawn from the fact that there are adjoining shops belonging to the Gurdwara and the shops in dispute were also in the vicinity of the Gurdwara. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon decisions reported as , Somnath Berman v/s. Dr. S.P. Raju and Anr. , Mt. Koki and Ors. v/s. Chetwa Chamar and Ors. and, 1980 P.L.J. 529, Sher Singh v/s. Sham Singh and Anr. in support of his submissions that even the previous possession can be the basis for a suit for possession.
(3.) After hearing counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I find no reason to interfere in finding and the conclusion of the appellate court. There is no dispute with the proposition that a suit for possession can be filed on the basis of previous possession also but there is no finding by the appellate court that the plaintiff -appellant was in possession earlier and in fact the suit of the appellant -plaintiff is based on title. The decisions relied upon do not apply. The contention of the appellant that the view taken by the appellate Court was erroneous and finding to the effect that the appellant was not proved to be the owner should be set aside and also cannot be accepted. It has not been shown that the finding of the appellate court is perverse. The view, taken by the appellate court is a possible view based on interpretation of entries placed on record. I am, therefore, unable to set -aside the finding of the appellate Court. Appeal is dismissed.;