The trial companyrt accepted the companytention of the appellants and directed the return of the plaint to the respondents for presentation to the Revenue Court.
The allegations in the plaint were that the land orginally belonged to one Atta Mohammad and others, that the respondents were occupancy tenants of the land that by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants Vesting of proprietary Rights Act the respondents became the owners of the land and that since the appellants had taken forcible possession of the land in 1958 they were entitled to evict the appellants.
The trial companyrt found that the respondents were the occupancy tenants of the land and that the appellants had number become the owners of the land by adverse possession and that the suit was number barred by limitation.
The trial companyrt allowed the amendment and framed issues on the basis of the companytentions in the amended written statement.
An appeal was filed by the appellant before the lower appellate companyrt.
By his judgment he directed the trial companyrt to find whether the appellants were trespassers or tenants and in case they were found to be trespassers, the trial companyrt will have jurisdiction to pass a decree against them, but in case they were found to be tenants, the suit will have to be dismissed.
The appellants companytended that they were the tenants of the land and that the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the suit.
That was dismissed.
The companyrt, therefore, decreed the suit.
The appellants filed a second appeal and the same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Or the other hand, the respondents submitted that they were in possession of the land, that they had acquired the occupancy right and that it was only in Rabi 1958 that they were forcibly dispossessed by the appellants.
Against this judgments, the respondents appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana who remanded the case to the trial companyrt for decision of the case on merits.
Thereafter the appellants applied before the trial companyrt for amendment of the written statement on that basis that they had become the occupancy tenants of the land by adverse possession against the original proprietors and had become owners of it under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act and that the suit was barred by limitation.
The appellants filed a second appeal against the decree before the High Court.
The High Court also dismissed the appeal.
The suit was for recovery of possession of a piece of land measuring 29 Kenals from the appellants.
K. Mathew, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana companyfirming the decrees passed by the companyrts below decreeing a suit filed by the respondents against the appellants.
