RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) ISMAIL son of Jumma filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner and in actual physical cultivating possession of agricultural land measuring 56 bighas 15 biswas situated in Village Ablowal, Tehsil and District Patiala. This claim was made on the basis that he was in actual physical cultivating possession of suit land for the last 14-15 years and had not paid even a single penny as rent or Chakota to Gurbax Singh and Jaswant Singh or to Partap Kaur, who was the sole legal heir of her sons Gurbax Singh and Jaswant Singh after their death. It was further claimed that the possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit land was open, notorious, hostile, adverse, actual, continuous and, as such, had ripened into title by adverse possession. The respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit when claim was not admitted/acknowledged by the appellant-defendant.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant-defendant, who filed written statement alleging that the contents of para 3 of the plaint were not within her knowledge. An objection was also taken to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff had no concern with the suit land. After filing of the replication, trial followed on the issue "whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession ?" In support of his claim, the respondent-plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box besides examining another witness, Parkash Chand and closed his evidence after tendering Exhibits P-1 to P-4 in evidence. Despite opportunity being provided to the appellant-defendant, she failed to produce any evidence. Record reveals that the appellant-defendant was given sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence but she failed to do so and, accordingly, her evidence was closed by order. Relying upon the evidence of respondent-plaintiff and the Jamabandis, Exhs. P-1 to P-4 produced by him, it was held by the trial Court that respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the suit land by way of adverse possession and, accordingly, the issue was decided in his favour. What mainly weighed with the trial Court was the fact that the defendant has failed to rebut the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and that the evidence and the record produced by him had remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The appellant-defendant failed in appeal before the first Appellate Court. It was also noticed by the first Appellate Court that no evidence had been produced and even the appellant-defendant had failed to appear in the witness box. It was, accordingly, found that there was not even an iota of evidence produced meaning thereby that the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff had gone unrebutted. The first Appellate Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal finding no merit therein. In this background, the appellant-respondent is in Regular Second Appeal before this Court.
(3.) AT the time of admission of the appeal, no substantial question of law had been formulated. At the time of hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant-respondent took time and, accordingly, has now placed on record the question of law that may arise in the present Regular Second Appeal. As per the appellant, the following substantial question of law would arise in the present Regular Second Appeal :- "Whether adverse possession can be claimed by son of the tenant, simply on the ground of non-payment of rent ?" ;