Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Defendant-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

2. In the considered opinion of this court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff who files a suit for injunction only claiming to be in possession can continue the suit once it is established that he is not in possession?

(ii) Whether tenancy of immovable property can be inferred only on the basis of revenue entries without any further evidence of inception regarding tenancy by any written or oral agreement and payment of the rent thereunder?

3. The facts of the case are that Dholan Singh, defendant-appellant purchased the property in dispute through two sale deeds dated 31.05.1985, Ex.D1 and D2. Plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2002, pleading that he is in continuous uninterrupted hostile possession of the property. In the alternative, plaintiff also pleaded that he is in possession of the property on payment of ½ batai (crop sharing). Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the plaint are extracted as under:-

“1. That the plaintiff is in possession of the land bearing khewat No.56 Khatauni No.63,