M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This is plaintiffs' appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "the Code") against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below dismissing their suit. The plaintiff -appellants have filed Civil Suit No. 97 dated 23.2.1976/94 dated 23.11.1979 claiming possession of the suit land from the defendants on the ground that they were owners of the suit land as the same had been purchased by them from the Rehabilitation Department for a sum of Rs. 5,425/ -. In that regard primary reliance was placed on the sale certificate dated 31.3.1967. The plaintiff -appellants have further claimed that they were staying away from the property in their village and the defendants -respondents forcibly trespassed over the suit land and made illegal constructions. The trial Court after examining the documentary as well as oral evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff -appellants were not able to prove the area of the plot No. 48 which was in dispute nor they could prove that the area is 1337 sq. yards as was claimed by them from the defendant -respondents. Even the boundaries as depicted in the site plan were not found to match with the sale certificate (Ex. P3).
(2.) On the issue as to whether the defendant -respondents were the lessees of the Municipal Committee, Sangrur, it was categorically found by the learned trial Court as under: The defendant to prove issue No. 2 relied upon receipt Exs. D1 to D47 to show that they were the lessees of the Municipal Committee, Sangrur on the site in dispute. These receipts were proved by D.W. 10 Madan Lal, Rent Collector, Municipal Committee, Sangrur. A scrutiny of these receipts does not at all show that they pertain to the site in dispute. No area or the boundaries of the place to which Exs. D1 to D45 relate, is mentioned in these receipts. D.W.10 categorically admitted in his cross -examination that the area for which the rent was realized from the defendants through Exs. D1 to D45 was 30' x 18' in possession Tara Singh defendant and 70' x 18' in possession of Tara Singh defendant. This area on calculation comes to 3600 sq.feet which means 400 sq.yards. The site in dispute is claimed to be 1337 sq. yards. This automatically shows that the site in dispute which related to Exs. D1 to D45 is a different one than the site in dispute bearing plot No. 48 D.W. 1 in the fag end of his cross -examination admitted that the area of the site with the defendants was not shown in the Municipal Register in the years 1966 -67. This itself clarifies that the defendants speak of a different place under their lease -hold than the site in dispute, to be the same place for which Exs. D1 to D45 have been got proved on the file. On going through the entire evidence, I do not feel inclined to hold that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that the area of plot No. 48 is the same, which is mentioned in the plaint and for which possession is claimed from the defendants. At the same time, the defendants have also failed to prove that the site in dispute belongs to the ownership of Municipal Committee, Sangrur. In the circumstances, issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs and issue No. 2 is decided against the defendants.
(3.) On the question of limitation of filing the suit, the learned trial Court held that the suit was filed within the period prescribed and it was not barred by limitation.;