Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) This is second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, whereby plaintiff Kishan Dev, since deceased, represented by his legal representatives (now respondent in this appeal) was declared owner-cum-landlord of the land in dispute and the appellants-defendants as tenant under him on payment of ⅓rd batai and necessary correction was ordered to be made in the revenue record i.e. in column No.9 of the jamabandies from the year 1961-62 onwards.
(2.) Case of the plaintiff Kishan Dev, in brief, is that father of defendants namely Gurditta was cultivating the suit land as tenant on payment of ⅓rd of the harvested crop to plaintiff. The land revenue and other taxes of the land were being paid by the plaintiff. Defendants-appellants after the demise of Gurditta continued cultivating the land on the same terms. Gurditta in collusion with revenue patwari, manipulated an entry in the column No.9 of the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 to replace the words 'batai tihai' to 'Bashahar Parta Malkan Ba Wajah Hone Be' (as owner due to sale). This entry continued in the jamabandi for the years 1966-67, 1971-72 and 1976-77. Gurditta kept on paying ⅓rd of the crop but the defendants after the death of Gurditta stopped the payment of share of crop in the year 1977. Plaintiff took the copies of jamabandies from the patwari and moved application before the revenue authorities for correction of entry in column No.9 in the jamabandi. On enquiry, this entry was found to be wrong and vide order dated 17.12.1978, it was ordered to be corrected. Patwari Halqa of village Neoli Kalan entered a rapat No.154 dated 21.01.1979 to rectify the wrong entry. Thereafter, patwari in connivance with defendants recorded another rapat No.165 dated 01.02.1979 to maintain the old entry. The matter was again brought to the notice of revenue authorities and Tehsildar, Hisar ordered that the entry in the jamabandies be got rectified through civil court which gave cause of action to the plaintiff to file the instant suit.
(3.) The defendants contested the claim of plaintiff, inter-alia, pleading that defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. The possession of defendants was for the last 17/18 years and was adverse, open against the plaintiff and his ancestors, as such, they have attained title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was admitted that father of defendants was cultivating the land in suit as tenant but the defendants never cultivated the land as such, nor paid any share of produce to the plaintiff. To support the entry in column No.9 of the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 showing possession of Gurditta, father of defendants as owner, the defendants alleged that after the death of father of plaintiff, the land was owned by his wife i.e. mother of plaintiff. She out of her faith on Gurditta and affection for him, conferred ownership right of suit land on him but no sale deed was got executed as there was litigation of plaintiff with his mother. She, however, admitted the defendants as owners of the suit land and due to this reason, plaintiff did not file any suit for a period of 18 years after the entry in column No.9 of the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 was incorporated, showing the possession of Gurditta as owner of the suit land. The entry in column No.9 of jamabandi for the year 1961-62 was in the knowledge of Smt. Champa, mother of plaintiff.;