- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants against an appellate decree of the earned Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur dated 27. 3. 57 whereby he partly decreed the plaintiff respondent's suit for possession over half the land in Khasra No. 881, the trial court having dismissed the same in full.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. Kanahiyalal the plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the court of the Assistant C Hector, Bharatpur for conferment of occupancy rights on the land in dispute as well as restoration of possession over the same. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his father had been in cultivatory possession of the land since Svt. 1989 but the defendant got the entries in the Khasra teep made in their name in Svt. 2008 and also forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff respondent from the land in question. The suit was resisted by the appellant defendant on various grounds. The trial court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned Addl. Commissioner observed that from the evidence it was not proved that the plaintiff appellant had been in continuous possession of the land for 12 years or more and therefore he was not entitled to get occupancy rights but as his possession was proved from Svt. 2005 to 2007 he was entitled to get possession over the land from which he was unlawfully dispossessed. Accordingly the lower appellate court dismissed the suit in so far as the conferment of occupancy rights were concerned but decreed the suit about restoration of possession over half the land. Against this decision of the learned Addl Commissioner present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the plaintiff respondent, having once surrendered the land as far back as Svt. 1989 and the entries to that effect having been made continuously upto Svt. 2005 in the name of the appellant the tenancy if any had extinguished and the learned lower appellate court acted illegally in relying on the subsequent entries of Svt. 2007 in the revenue records in favour of the respondent. It was also pointed out that there being no statuary presumption of genuineness or correctness about these entries, the learned appellate court should have rejected the same in the absence of any independent and corroborative evidence to prove the claim of the plaintiff respondent. We have seen the disputed entries in Khasra teep. From 1989 to 2004 the land had never been recorded in the name of the plaintiff. In Svt. 2005 it was recorded as half and half in the name of the plaintiff and the respondent; again in Svt. 2006 it was recorded exclusively in the name of the defendant and in Svt. 2007 the entry of the Svt. 2005 was repeated. There after the land is admittedly in possession of the defendant to the exclusion of the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff therefore was shown last in Svt. 2007 in possession of 1/2 the land. It has not been explained as to how he came in possession of the half land when he had none in the previous year. As a rule a person before praying successfully to obtain possession must show that he was lawfully admitted as tenant of the land. No such evidence is available on the record. We have also read Ex. D. 3 said to have been executed by the plaintiff along with the oral evidence examined to prove its execution. There is indeed no direct evidence to prove its execution but the cumulative effect of the statements of the Patwari D. W. 2 and D. W. I read with entries in Khasra Teeps of Svt. 1989 to 2004 is clearly in favour of the defendants. The learned lower appellate court was in our opinion not correct in disbelieving the entire set of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the defendants. The trial court has definitely given weighty reasons to discard the inconsistent evidence of the plaintiff, Accordingly we hold that the plaintiff having failed to prove that he was ever admitted as a tenant by the respondent cannot claim restoration of possession. The appeal is in the result allowed and the decree given by the lower appellate court is let aside and that of the trail court is upheld. .;