1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The respondents filed a suit for possession alleging that they are the joint owners of Khasra No.204 Khewat No.31 Khatauni No.69 situated in village R.I Chand, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat. They further alleged that an area of 2 Kanals 18 Marlas, out of the said land, had been forcibly occupied by the petitioners herein and prayed that a decree of ejectment be granted in their favour against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners herein, besides taking certain other preliminary objections in their written statement submitted, on the merits, that they were in possession of the suit land for more than 20 years and, therefore, even if the plaintiffs (respondents herein) had any title they had lost it on account of the adverse possession.
3. However, during the course of the evidence led by the parties, the petitioners led evidence to the effect that they were not in possession of the land in dispute but of some other land, situated in the adjoining village. The trial Court, therefore, observing that the petitioners had not led evidence of their adverse possession over the land but had led evidence that they were in possession of some other land (and not in possession of the suit land) decreed the suit of the respondents. The aforesaid decree was upheld, on appeal, by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Judge of the High Court, on second appeal, observed that the petitioners herein had taken a summersault, in that the evidence led by them at the trial contradicted the stand taken by them in their written statement. He held that the suit of, the respondents was rightly decreed and proceeded to dismiss the second appeal as well.
4. Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners before us, tried to rationalise the summersault taken by the petitioners at the evidence stage by adopting a stand altogether different from that taken by them in their written statement, but he has not succeeded in doing p so and we cannot but agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court in the circumstances noted above. No reason, therefore, exists to warrant interference with the unanimous view of all the three Courts below.
5. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.