- (1.) In view of reasons given in application for condonation of 139 days delay in refilling the appeal, it is allowed and the delay stands condoned.
(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a suit for declaration, claiming ownership and in possession of the property, in dispute, description of which was given in their plaint. They also prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be issued in their favour restraining the appellants and respondent No.7 to interfere in their possession. It was case of the contesting respondents that the land, in dispute, was lying `Banjar, they having no other source of livelihood, entered the same and by spending huge amount and labour, made it cultivable. Their possession was open and hostile and known to the authorities. No objection was raised to the same, as such, by afflux of time, they have become owners of the land, in dispute. After contest, their suit was dismissed. However, they succeeded in appeal. It has been noticed by the appellate Court below that they are in possession for the last more than 33 years. Appellants have failed to prove that at any point of time, land, in dispute, was leased out to the respondents or they have entered in possession of the property, under any authority. Rather there is admission on the part of the appellants that from the day one, their possession was illegal. Counsel for the appellants, by referring to any evidence on record, has failed to rebut the contention, to the extent that the land was lying `Banjar and the same was made cultivable by respondent Nos.1 to 6. At no time, ejectment proceedings were initiated against the respondents. Appellate Court below, while relying upon various jamabandis and also other evidence on record, has held respondent Nos.1 to 6 as owners of the land, in dispute. It is also apparent from the records that the appellants have failed to prove that the land was an evacuee property.
(3.) No notification or other evidence has been brought on record in that regard. In view of findings given by appellate Court bellow in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 of its judgment, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments. Dismissed.;