AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—Challenged in Second Appeal here is the hiding recorded against the defendant to the effect that he was not in possession of the land in suit as a tenant under the plaintiff. Being a pure finding of fact, no interference is warranted
The appeal here arises from a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had trespassed on the land in suit and forcibly occupied it after getting a false entry made in the Khasra Girdwari, in connivance with the revenue officers showing him to be in possession thereof as a tenant The defendant, however, asserted that he was in fact a tenant on the land in suit for the last more than twenty years and the plaintiff was thus not entitled to the decree for possession prayed for.
A reference to the record would show that though the defendant had taken up the plea that he had been in possession of the land in suit for more than 20 years, there is only one revenue entry which describes him as such and that being in the Khasra Girdwari for Kharif 1976 As regards this entry, it is pertinent to note that the report of the Patwari on the basis of which it came to be made, has not been produced. What is more, there is no evidence on record to show that this land had ever been taken on lease by the defendant nor of any payment of rent in respect thereof to the plaintiff. Such thus being the circumstances, the courts below committed no error in preferring the earlier entries to this solitary later entry in the Khasra Girdwari
This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.