' Respondents filed a suit for possession saying that they were owners of an area measuring 8 Kanals in Khasra No, 204 Khewat No, 31, Khatauni No, 69 recorded in Register Haqdaran Lamm for the year 1973-74, situated in the area of village Rai Chand, Tehsil Kharian and that the appellants had by force taken possession of an area of 2 Kanais 18 Marlas and that a decree of ejectment be granted in their favour and against the appellants. The suit was filed on 6th July, 1978. The appellants filed a written statement saying that they were in possession of the land in dispute for more than 20 years as owners. Even if for arguments, the respondents' title be proved, they had waived the same. The appellants led evidence that they were not in possession of land in dispute but of some other land situated in the adjoining village. The learned trial Court found that the appellant's case in their written statement being that they were in possession of the land in dispute for more than 20 years and having led evidence to prove that they were not in possession of the suit land, therefore, the respondents were entitled to the decree and it was ordered accordingly vide judgment and decree, dated 24th February, 1980. Appellants' first appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree, dated 30th May, 1981 Hence this Regular Second Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the suit was bad for multifariousness of causes of action and defendants, judgments of the Courts below are full of errors and contradictions, the suit should have been dismissed on the ground that the cause of action was not disclosed, he placed reliance on 46 I C 964, that the adverse possession stood proved and that the respondents had failed to prove that the land was situated in Khasra No, 204, Khewat No, 31, Khatauni No, 69 of village Rai Chand, mentioned in the plaint.
3. The revenue authorities had demarcated the land in dispute in favour of the respondents vide report of the the Girdawar, dated 27th June, 1978 (Exh. P. 1). It was thereafter that the suit was filed on 6th July, 1978 and the appellants filed written statement on 9th September, 1979. They relied on a report of Local Commissioner, dated 11th September, 1971 (Exh. D. A.) showing that the land on which they were in possession was different than the one mentioned in the plaint.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appellants' own case in the written statement was that they were in possession of the suit land for more than 20 years and having led no evidence of their adverse possession rather on the other hand having led evidence that they were not in possession of the suit land, the appellants have no right to maintain the Second Appeal.
5. I have-heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. The suit land was mentioned with reference to its location by Khasra No, 204, Khewat No, 31, Khatauni No, 69 vide Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1973-74 of village Rai Chand and it was the case of the plaintiff-respondents that out of the 8 Kanals of land so located, the defendants- appellants have by force taken possession of 2 Kanals 18 Marlas. The defendant-appellants stated in their written statement that they were in possession of the suit land for more than 20 years as owners and even if the plaintiff respondents had any title, they had lost it. The somersault was taken in the evidence led by the defendant-appellants to the effect that they were not in possession of the suit land but of some other land. The suit was for a decree of possession of the suit land. Possession thereof having been denied in evidence by the defendant-appellants, the plaintiff-respondents were rightly decreed the suit.
' In view of the above, there is no justification to interfere in this Second Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, in the circumstances.