Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 14.12.89, rendered by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and, the judgement and decree, dated 31.07.92, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, Punjab Wakf Board, plaintiff, is the owner of the land, measuring 22 kanals, situated in village Deepawal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. It was stated that the defendant, had illegally encroached upon the land, in dispute, without having any right or title therein. The defendant, was many a time, asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff, over the land, in dispute and hand over the vacant possession thereof, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession, was filed.

3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; that the Civil Court, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the suit; that no notice, was served, upon the defendant/appellant, before filing the suit; and that the plaintiff/respondent, was estopped, from filing the suit, by its own act and conduct. It was stated that, as per the revenue record, the land, in dispute, was owned, by Gram Panchayat, it being Shamlat Deh. It was further stated that some officials of the plaintiff, approached the defendant, in the year 1970, and told him that the land, in dispute, was owned by it (plaintiff). It was further stated that the land, in dispute, is a grave-yard. It was further stated that the defendant, used to serve the grave, being Chela. It was further stated that the defendant, being illiterate, accepted the demand of the plaintiff, and agreed to take the land, in dispute, on lease. It was further stated that lease deed, was executed, by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff @ Rs. 160/- per year. It was further stated that, thereafter, the rent, was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per annum. It was further stated that, later on, it came to the knowledge of the defendant, that the land, in dispute, was a Shamlat Deh-, and did not vest in the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant, had been in possession of the land, in dispute, for the last more than 30 years. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck--

(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable - OPD

(ii) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit - OPD

(iii) Whether the notice was required to be served - If so its effect - OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct - OPD

(v) Whether the plaint is required to be amended as per preliminary objection No.6-OPD

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property - OPP

(vii) Whether the defendant has illegally and forcibly occupied the land, in dispute - OPP

(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as prayed-for - OPP

(ix) Whether the defendant is tenant @ Rs. 200/- per year - If so its effect - OPD

(x) Relief.

5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kapurthala,vide judgement and decree dated 31.07.92.

7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant.

8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

9. The following substantial questions of law arise, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court --

(i) Whether the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading and misappreciation of