Sheo Balak vs Baiju and Others

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1 have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at a great stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

The main thrust of the Petitioner''s case in the lower courts was that the land was in joint possession of his father and grandfather of the Respondent No. 1. After perusing the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, both the courts concluded and rightly so, that the theory of joint acquisition was not proved.

Then the question of entry in the year 1359 Fasli arose and on that basis the Petitioner claimed some rights. When once the case of the Petitioner, that he was co-tenure holder, has been belied, he cannot have recourse to the benefit of entry in the year 1359 Fasli. He cannot blow hot and cold together. There cannot be any adverse possession against the co-tenure holder. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the lower courts have not considered his case properly has no force. It is not an appellate court. The lower courts have drawn a correct conclusion after taking into consideration the entire evidence and circumstances on the record.

There is no ground for Interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Cost easy.