H.S. Bedi, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendants in the suit. The subject matter of the controversy is land
measuring 83 kanals and 10 marlas, situated in village Bhag Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Faridkot. The parties to the litigation are descendants
of a common ancestor Man Singh. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents Mehar Singh and Kehar Singh is that the land which is the subject matter
of dispute, though originally belonged to the family of Man Singh, had come to their ownership on account of adverse possession. In answer to this
plea in the plaint, it was denied that the plaintiffs had become owners by averse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :-
1. Whether the defendants have lost their title to the land by abandonment ? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiffs have become owner by adverse possession ? OPP.
3. Relief.
2. The learned trial Court took up issue No. 2 first and decided the same against plaintiffs-respondents, holding that they had failed to prove that
they had become owners by adverse possession. Issue No. 1 was also decided against the plaintiffs-respondents, holding that the defendants-
appellants had not lost title to the land by abandonment. The suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal taken to the first appellate Court, Issue
No. 1 was not assailed, whereas issue No. 2, which is material one, was forcefully argued. The first appellate Court came to the conclusion that
the plaintiffs-respondents were liable to succeed on two grounds primarily : firstly, that in the document Exhibit P-12 filed in the earlier litigation
between the parties, the title of the appellants had been denied ; and secondly, that the fact that no rent had been paid by the plaintiffs for a period
of 30 to 40 years indicated that the ouster had taken plea from the land in question. It was also mentioned that the copy of the jamabandi for the
year 1967-68 showed that the respondents herein were in possession of he land in suit without payment of any rent. As a result of the finding on
issue No. 2, the appeal was accepted and the suit decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have come to this Court by way of second appeal.
3. Mr. A.L. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued on the basis of the judgments in Mst. Bui (deceased) represented by Legal
Representatives v. Gurdip Singh (1976) 78 P.L.R. 461, Joginder Pal alias Voginder Pal v. Angad Singh and Ors. (1983) 85 P.L.R. 429, Surjan
Singh and Ors. v. Gurdev Kaur and Ors. 1985 P.L.J. 611, and Kehar Singh and Ors. v. Ishwar and Ors. 1986 P.L.J. 155, that merely because
no rent had been paid by the co-sharers was not conclusive of the fact that the ouster had taken place. He has also urged that in Exhibit P-12
referred to above, there had been no specific denial of the title of the respondents. Mr. Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents, has,
however, supported the reasoning of the lower appellate Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the appeal. It is undoubtedly true, as has been urged by Mr. Bansal, that the
mere fact that rent had not been paid by the co-sharers, would not be conclusive that an abandonment had taken place so as to prove the factum
of adverse possession, but as already indicated above and held by the lower appellate Court, the rent had not been paid over a period of 30-40
years. It is also significant that the title of the appellants was denied in Exhibit P.12 but they nevertheless made no effort to enforce their rights in the
property.
5. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
