This is the unsuccessful plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court and dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, in first appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The plaintiff in support of his allegations produced certified copies of the entries in the Gasht Girdavari for Smt years 2007 to 2010 along with oral evidence. The entries in the Gasht Girdavari for all these consecutive years reveal that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant to the extent of one-half, Sona grandfather of Deva defendant being shown as in possession of the other half. The trial court relying upon the entries in the Gasht Girdavari and the oral evidence led by the plaintiff decreed the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner starts with the observation that except the entries in the khasra-teep of Svt. years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there is no evidence of the fact that the respondent is a tenant of the land in dispute. This obviously is incorrect as the plaintiff had led oral evidence as well in support of his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document