Joginder Pal vs Angad Singh and others

Prem Chand Jain, J.—The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus:--

Joginder Pal, plaintiff-appellant, instituted a suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, for the grant of a declaration to the effect that he is in possession as an owner of land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marias, comprising Rectangle No. 80 Killa Nos. 71 and 161, located in the area of village Kurali Tahsil Kharar, district Ropar, solely on the ground that his possession, as well as his predecessors-in interest possession has been for a period of more thad 50 years, that his possession as well as of this predecessors in interest has been open, hostile and adverse to the true owners for a period of more than 50 years and that his title over this land has ripened into full ownership.

The suit was contested by the defendants. The only issue framed on the pleadings of the parties reads as under:--

Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession and prescription?

The parties led evidence. On consideration of the entire evidence that was led by the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that be had become the owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession and prescription Consequently, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the learned District Judge, again on consideration of the entire matter, found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his adverse possession, with the result that the appeal was dismissed with costs Still dissatisfied, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find no merit in this appeal.

It is contended by Mr. Atma Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, on the strength of the entries made in the revenue record that the plaintiff and his predecessors-in interest have been in possession of the land without paying any rent and that their adverse possession on the land in dispute was fully proved. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Puran v. Kure (1955) 57 P.L.R.57 and Maman Singh v. The Resident Magistrate, Gohana (1965) 67 P.L.R 161 and of the Lahore High Court in AIR 1930 991 (Lahore) . After going through the rulings, in the light of the entries made in the revenue record, I find that the same have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. In the circumstances of the case, merely nonpayment of rent, would not be sufficient to warrant a finding that the possession of the plaintiff had become adverse. The learned appellate Court on consideration of the entire matter, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his adverse possession over the land in dispute. The finding being a pure finding of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal.

No other point is urged

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.