S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) The appellants filed this suit for joint possession of the land in dispute alleging that they were its joint occupancy tenants along with the defendants. The respondents controverted their allegations and claimed to be the sole owners is possession of the suit land. The trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiffs, but its findings were reversed on appeal by the learned Senior Sub Judge (with enhanced appellate powers) and the suit dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have come up in this Second Appeal.
(2.) The only point involved in the suit is whether the plaintiffs were joint occupancy or non occupancy tenants of the land in dispute. The finding recorded on this matter is a pure finding of fact based on the appreciation of the entries in the revenue records. However, the learned counsel for the appellants sought to challenge this finding on the ground that presumption arising from the entries in the later Jamabandis stood rebutted from the entries in the earlier Jamabandis consistently for more than two decades. I am unable to subscribe to the contention raised. The status of the parties was only of non occupancy tenants which was liable to undergo any change at anytime. The finding of the fact recorded, therefore, would not be open to challenge in the second Appeal on the contention raised.
(3.) That apart, since the year 1955-56 only the respondents are shown to be in possession in the said capacity. This entry was repeated consistently upto the year 1972 for sixteen years, when the suit was filed Although no plea of limitation is raised by the defendants, but that would not debar the Court from finding out if the suit is within limitation or not When the entries appear in a jamabandi for the first time, the person concerned is presumed to know the same as they are attested in the general gathering in the village Otherwise also, the entries carry presumption of truth The appellants were, therefore, required to file the suit when the assertion had been made in the year 1955-56 that the respondents were the only tenants and in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs at that time and the limitation started running therefrom. The suit having been filed beyond twelve years therefrom would be obviously, barred by time This appeal, therefore, must fail on both the counts and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;