1989SCMR842 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The defendants in a Civil Suit seek leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the three Courts with regard to their title to the disputed land. Their contention in the civil suit was that under an Adhlapi agreement they had acquired a share in the two Khatas belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents and the mutation had been entered and attested in 1937 and necessary corrections in it made in 1949. It was not, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, open to the plaintiffs to have agitated after such a long period when the mutation stood incorporated in the Jamabandi to challenge those and to have succeeded. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts will be apparent from the following conclusions drawn by the High Court in the following terms:‑‑ "After having heard the parties and perused the record and discussed the lower Courts' judgments the conclusion is that, firstly there was no Adhlapi agreement between the parties for the same has not been proved in any manner whatsoever, that if it is conceded for arguments sake that there was one, then the same agreement was not fulfilled as no well was sunk nor land made cultivable; secondly, that there was no evidence to establish the possession of the suit land by the petitioners/defendants to establish their case of adverse possession. On the contrary the documents relied upon by the said party i.e. Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.7 and Exh.D.15 to Exh. D.18 itself states that the land was Banjar Qadeem, therefore, the presumption in law and fact is that the original " owners namely plaintiffs/respondents were in possession. Thirdly, that the entries in the impugned mutation Exh.D.3 itself gives rise to graved doubts about its validity and genuineness and in any case the said mutation entries have not been proved or corroborated by any evidence. Fourthly, that the limitation in the present case starts from the date when the petitioners/defendants threatened to interfere with the ownership and possession of respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, the suit was within time and it was rightly so held by the concurrent judgements of the learned lower Courts.

18. It shall be pertinent to point out here that the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any misreading or non‑reading of the evidence nor did he refer to any of the two judgments of the learned lower Courts to point out any material irregularity or illegality committed. He furthermore did not challenge any of the authorities relied upon by the learned Courts below to support their findings and his contention that none of the plaintiffs had appeared is belied by the testimony of P.W.1 plaintiff No.2. The case law cited by him is either irrelevant or fails to support his contentions as discussed and pointed out earlier. Whereas the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are relevant, to the point and fully support his plea that no case is made out for interference under the revisional jurisdiction in the present case:' The learned counsel was asked to show whether there was any material on the record to sustain a conclusion that in 1937 a well had been sunk in either of the two Khatas and the land had been brought under cultivation because it was only on the satisfaction of these two conditions that the Adhlanni mutation could be attested in their favour. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such material. In the circumstances, no case is made out for leave to appeal and the same is refused. A.A./A‑425/S Leave to appeal refused.