Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has been non -suited by two of the Courts below in a suit for declaration. Through the instant regular second appeal, he is challenging the concurrent findings returned against him by the trial court as well as learned first appellate court below.
(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff was that he is in cultivating possession over the suit land for the last more than 40 years and as such, has acquired the status of owner thereof by way of adverse possession, which is uninterrupted. While the stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was that they are continuing in self cultivation of the disputed property since Kharif 1996 and the plaintiff has cultivated the suit land only for 7/8 years uptil Rabi 1995 as tenant as 1/3rd batai. It is apparent that although there was no entry regarding payment of any rent in the jamabandi for the year 1995 -96, so produced by the plaintiff, yet it has come on the evidence of PW.8 Sham Sunder that in the jamabandies for the year 1970 -71 to 1995 -96 the defendants were recorded as owner of the suit land while in the column of cultivation the name of plaintiff Dhan Singh was entered and in the column of rent, there was an entry of 1/3rd batai. This led both the Courts below to hold that merely because of one entry, it cannot be said that the suit land was without any rent with the plaintiff and once the plaintiff has been shown to be occupying the suit land as tenant, he cannot claim himself to be the owner of the same by way of adverse possession. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the maternal uncle of defendants. Taking into account this fact, it has been held that although no documentary evidence with regard to payment of rent/batai by the plaintiff has been produced by the defendants, but keeping in view the close relations between the parties, it cannot be said that the possession of the plaintiff is not hostile. That apart, it has been held that mere entries in the Warrabandi of the Canal Department would not clothe the plaintiff with the status of owner of the suit property particularly in the light of entries in revenue record wherein he was shown as tenant on payment of 1/3rd batai.
(3.) NOTHING has been shown that findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.;