' This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14-3-1969, by which an Additional District Judge at Gujrat had dismissed the appeal of Salehon and others, the defendant-appellants, against the judgment and decree dated 3-12-1968, whereby a learned Civil Judge at Gujrat had decreed the declaratory suit of Sardara plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the suit land having a joint Khata with his opponents and was in possession thereof as a co-owner.
2. The declaration sought for by Sardara plaintiff-respondent was opposed by the defendants- appellants in their joint written statement wherein they alleged that they had been allotted the disputed property in the consolidation proceedings and his opponents in fact wanted to challenge the order of Consolidation Authorities. They also claimed maturity of possessory title on the ground of their having been in adverse possession of the suit land for a period of more than 12 years.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court had framed the following issues. Issues.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? OPP (2, If issue No,1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff whether the defendants have perfected their title by dint of adverse possession for a period of over 12 years? OPD
(3) Whether this Court is not competent to try this suit as contended in para. 5 of the written statement? OPD
(4) Relief.
4. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel, the learned trial Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his suit. Dissatisfied with the findings of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Court but threre too they remained unsuccessful and ultimately filed this appeal.
5. As in the lower forums, the main question agitated on behalf of the defendants-appellants before this Court was that they had become owners of I he suit land by having been in its adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years. With reference to the contents of Jamabandis right from the year 1940-41 till 1963-64 (Exh.D-3 to Exh.D-7) and (Exh.P-1), the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that entries in the rent column clearly indicated that the defendants-appellants had been in possession of the disputed land as owners paying no rent to their opponents and their continuous possession as such for a period of more than 12 years obviously resulted in the maturity of their possessory title as a consequence of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent should have been dismissed but the Courts below resorting to misreading of important evidence took an erroneous view. He contended that the possession of his clients over the suit land had all the attributes of adverse posssession as it was open and hostile, clearly denying the title of their adversaries. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Mst. Bhag Bhari etc. v. Mst. Bhagan and another PLD 1954 Lah.
356.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent with reference to the same entries of the Revenue Record coupled with the law laid down in Noor Muhammad v. Mst. Hubab Jan and 9 others PLD 1974 SC 78 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 argued that his client had decidedly been a co-owner in the suit land alongwith his opponents and the possession of the latter could never be adverse in the absence of any definite act of ouster for which there was no indication, neither in the oral nor in the documentary evidence at ailable on the record. In his opinion, on the principle of 'once a tenant always a tenant', the defendants- appellants in fact could not deny the title of the plaintiff-respondent.
7. After perusing the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and considering their arguments in the light of case-law cited by them, I am of the view that despite the entries in the rent column of the Jamabandis indicating non-payment of rent of the suit land by the defendants-appellants to the plaintiff-respondent for a number of years, their possession still remained that of tenants-at-will under the landlordship of their opponent. Even Salehon, who appeared as his own witness before the Trial Court, was not consistent in his assertion on this point because in the beginning of the cross-examination he admitted that his father had originally been cultivating the land on the payment of share of produce. However, subsequently he altered his position by deposing that he had been in possession of the land as an owner paying no `Batai' to the plaintiff-respondent. Similarly, the defendant-appellants could not bring on the record any proof in support of their assertion that the suit land had been partitioned between him and their opponent and it had fallen to their share nor they adduced any evidence of any overt act of any specific nature showing the ouster of the plaintiff-respondent from the disputed property. In the ownership column of the Revenue Record the parties continued to be entered as co-owners and in the cultivation column the defendant-appellants continued to be shown as tenants under the landlordship of the plaintiff-rspondent. Only the contents of the rent column of the Revenue Record created some confusion but these entries alone were not sufficient to support the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants appellants. Both the Courts below without resorting to any misreading ander non-reading of evidence, consistently and concurrently held that the possession of the defendants-appellants was that of tenants-at-will over the disputed land under the landlordship of the plaintiff-respondent and no fault can be found with their findings on this point.
Consequently there is no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.