Gurmit Ram, J.

This appeal is preferred by abovesaid appellant, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below with a further prayer to decree his suit by accepting this appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court in brief was that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute measuring 40 kanals as detailed in the headnote of the plaint as a tenant, whereas defendants were owners of this land. Since the defendants were threatening to dispossess him from the suit land forcibly, so he had to file the instant suit.

3. Defendants in their written statement admitted that they are owners of the land in dispute. It is further their case that plaintiff is neither their tenant nor he is in possession of the land in dispute. Rather they took the plea that they themselves are cultivating the land in dispute being its owners.

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

i. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as a tenant under the defendants? OPP

ii. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

iii.