Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: (Oral) - This appeal has been filed, challenging judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs along with defendant No.3 are owners in possession of 8 kanals 10 marlas of land (herein after to be known as suit land) and the entries in the name of Central Government in the column of ownership are illegal and are liable to be corrected. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.3 over the suit land. Plaintiffs alleged that the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by the proprietors of the village. The land was given to the predecessor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 as occupancy tenants (Bhondedars). No rent or batai was ever paid by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 in lieu of their cultivation on the land in question. With the enactment of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, the plaintiffs claimed that they along with defendant No.3 have become owners.

2. With the migration of Muslim proprietors to Pakistan, the suit land came to be recorded in the name of Central Government under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, but their possession remained unfettered. No notice was ever given to the plaintiffs or their predecessor before vesting the land in the name of Central Government i.e. custodian. With this background, suit for declaration was filed which was opposed by the defendants No.1 to 4, alleging that Central Government has been recorded as owner and plaintiffs are not the Bhondedars after the partition of the country, because they are not performing the duties of Bhonde. The status of the plaintiffs was claimed to be that of unauthorized occupants. With the migration of Muslim proprietors to Pakistan, at the time of partition of the country, the land in question came to be automatically vested in custodian free from all encumbrances and right, title and interest of any party de hors his status in the revenue record, came to an end.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for declaration that they along with defendant No.3 are owners in possession of the land mentioned in plaint and the entries in the name of Central Government in the column of ownership in jamabandi are wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 from interfering in possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.3? OPP

3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is not properly valued? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD

8. Relief.

4. Both the parties led evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit by taking note of the fact that the plaintiffs have also staked their claim on the basis of adverse possession, i.e. a plea to be taken as a defence. Though the trial Court has acknowledged the fact that the revenue record vis jamabandi for the year 1946-47 (Exhibit P-7,P-7A), jamabandi for the year 1952-53 (Exhibit P-8/A), showed the land to be Arazi Matruka, but in the column of cultivation, the possession of occupancy tenants/Bhondedars has been shown. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved ingredients of occupancy tenants in terms of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Right) Act, 1953.

5. The Lower Appellate Court while appreciating the entries in the revenue record admitted the factum of plaintiffs being in possession, but as unauthorized occupants because ownership