IMPORTANT POINT
No tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant shall, during the continuance of tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the owner/landlord of such property.

JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated March 12, 1982 in Regular Second Appeal No. 172/1972 reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1972 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No. 307/1971 and restoring the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1969 passed by the Sub-Judge, Class II, Taran-Taran in case No. 32/1967.

2. Smt. Jogindero alias Gindo and Smt. Chhindo, plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Smt. Soman, defendants/Respondent No. 4. Shingara Singh, plaintiff/Respondent No. 3 is sister s son of Smt. Soman. The land in suit as admeasuring 60 Kenals and 17 marlas belonged to Smt. Soman. According to the plaintiffs, Smt. Soman, defendant/Respondent No. 4 made a gift of said land in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered gift deed dated April 12, 1960 with delivery of possession. The defendant No. 1 Surain Singh (who died during the pendency of the Second Appeal before the High Court and is represented by his legal representatives) and Bur Singh, defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 herein are tenants in respect of the suit land under defendant No. 4, Smt. Soman. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 with the connivance of the revenue authorities got their own name mutated on April 17, 1967 in the revenue records and declined to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for possession of the land.

3. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resisted the plaintiffs suit by contending that Smt. Soman, defendant No. 4 after the death of her husband, Gujjar Singh, had remarried and, therefore, Smt. Soman had no subsisting right, title or interest in the property in dispute. They also denied that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Smt. Soman from her late husband Gujjar Singh. The relationship of the plaintiff No. 3, Shingara Singh with Smt. Soman and her husband was also denied. They further took the plea that no gift deed as alleged by the plaintiffs was ever executed in their favour and even if Smt. Soman had executed any such deed of gift the same was not binding on the defendants as Smt. Soman had no subsisting right in the said land. They took the stand that they were cultivating the land as owners thereof and not as tenant.

4. However, at the trial the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were the daughters of Smt. Soman and accordingly there was no contest on issue No. 1 which related to the relationship of the plaintiffs with Smt. Soman. Similarly the parties gave up the dispute with regard to the previous litigation in respect of the suit property. However, on a close analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the trial Court recorded the finding that the defendants had failed to establish that Smt. Soman, defendant No. 4 had remarried after the death of her former husband, Gujjar Singh, and, therefore she was not divested of her right, title and interest in the property. The trial Court also recorded the finding that Smt. Soman had made a gift of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by the registered deed of gift dated April 12, 1960 and that the defendants were recorded as tenants under Smt. Soman, defendant No. 4 in Khasra Girdawari in the year 1961-62 and 1963-64 onwards and they being the tenants of Smt. Soman were estopped from contending that they were in possession of the land in their own rights as owners. On these findings the learned Trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession. On appeal by the defendant No. 1, Surain Singh (since deceased) learned Additional District Judge reversed the aforementioned findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff suit with costs. Before the appellate Court the defendant Surain Singh did not challenge the findings with regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs with