A tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord; the burden of proof lies on the tenant to demonstrate cessation of the landlord-tenant relationship.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

The appellant-plaintiff is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1989 passed in Civil Suit No. 135 of 27.02.1987 by Sub Judge, First Class, Palwal as well as the subsequent dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1989 by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.1992.

2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief claiming himself to be in possession of agricultural land bearing Khewat No. /Khatoni No. 169/188, rect. No. 42 killa No. 12/2(7-4) situated within the revenue estate of village Alimeo, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad. It was averred that appellant-plaintiff had assumed possession of the suit land from Kharif 1973 by force and that he had become owner by way of an adverse possession since his possession had been hostile, open, continuous, exclusive and to the knowledge of the respondent-defendants as well as their father Bhure Khan. Reliance was placed on the column No. 9 of the Jamabandi prepared in the year 1975-76, 1979-80 and 1981-82 to substantiate that no rent was being paid for the said land and to assert that the possession over the land was hostile. It was also averred that deceased Bhure Khan continued to reflect as owner of the suit property in the revenue record prepared by the revenue officials in a wrongful manner, which was incorrect and needed to be rectified.

3. It was submitted that an ejectment suit was earlier filed by Bhure Khan on 23.06.1979 in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Grade, Palwal, claiming the appellant-plaintiff to be as tenant under him and in cultivation of the suit property at the rate of 1/3rd batai which was decided in favour of Bhure Khan on 05.02.1987 and that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent-defendant got entry No.9 of Jamabandi changed showing the appellant-plaintiff to be in cultivating possession of the suit land at the rate of 1/2 batai. A declaration was also sought that Bhure Khan was not entitled to get the entries changed without taking recourse to the Court of law as per procedure envisaged in Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and that no notice of such change was given to the appellant-plaintiff and that the proper procedure had not been followed. It was averred that on the basis of the ejectment order dated 05.02.1987, the respondent-defendant threatened to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff from the land holding, in an illegal and forcible manner. Consequently, the above said suit for declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief was filed before the Sub Judge, First Class, Palwal.

4. The respondent-defendants entered appearance and had filed a written statement taking a preliminary objections as to estoppel, jurisdiction and cause of action. It was stated that Karim Khan @ Karim Bux-father of the appellant-plaintiff started cultivation of the suit land as a tenant on payment of ½ Batai under the Bhure Khan-deceased father of the defendant-respondents and entries in the name of aforesaid Karim Khan @ Karim Bux continued to reflect in the Jamabandis for the year 1960 as well as 1965-66. It was further averred that on death of Karim Khan & Karim Bux, the name of appellant-plaintiff was entered as cultivator in the Kharif 1973 and the rate of rent was kept as "Badastoor". Hence, the appellant-plaintiff inherited the tenancy rights of his father regarding the suit land. It was averred that due to an inadvertence, the column of rent was left blank in the Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1970-71 by the Revenue Department and there was no change in the Girdawari for the crop Kharif 70 and Rabi 71 as well as the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. It was thus submitted that the absence of the rent entry in the subsequent record was hence inadvertent and that the said error was corrected through a far