Ram Murti Rastogi, J.

l. This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th January 1974, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2-A/1968 by the learned Additional District Judge Datia, whereby the decree and judgment, dated 13-1-1968, passed in Civil Suit No. 86-A/1965 by the Civil Judge, Class II, Datia, was reversed, where in the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

2. The facts not in dispute are that the suit lands (Khasra No. 371, area 4.22 biswa; Khasra No 520, area 1.80 biswa; and Khasra No. 541, area 42 biswa: situate at village Chakkebu, Tahsil and District Datia) were the Jagir lands of the defendant No.1 Chhatrasal Singh (who is since dead and is represented by his legal representatives before this Court). Chhatrasal Singh was the then Jagirdar of the village. Plaintiff Gambhira, defendant No.1 deceased Chhatrasal Singh and the defendant No.2 Punna were real brothers. Plaintiff Gambhira and defendant No.2 Punna were the tenants of the deceased Jagirdar Chhatrasal Singh in the suit lands. They were dispossessed from the suit lands by the deceased Cbhatrasal Singh in 1950. Within six months of the dispossession, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Punna had brought two suit for possession under section 9 of the then Specific Relief Act, 1877, being Civil Suits No. 22/1950 and 151/1950 against the deceased Chhatrasal Singh. Both the suits were decreed on 30-4-1951 and 28-2-1951, respectively, restoring possession to them. Upto this stage, there is no dispute on facts. Hereinafter, according to the plaintiff, he and Punna were put in possession of the suit-lands in 1951 in execution of the aforesaid two decrees, whereas the defendant Chhatrasal Singh has controverted it.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that be and the defendant No.2 Punna were in continuous, cultivating possession of the suit- lands upto 1965, when on 20-10- 1965 defendant No.1 deceased Chhatrasal Singh dispcsses6ed them and took forcible possession of the suit-lands. As brother Punna had been won over and was in collusion with defendant Chbatrasal Singh, he was being sued as defendant No.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession under section 6 of the specific Relief Act, 1963. Towards the close of the trial, the plaintiff pleaded perfection of his title by adverse possession by an amendment to his plaint.

4. The deceased defendant Chhatrasal Singh denied the plaint allegations and asserted that the decrees in the aforesaid two civil suits were granted in 1951 in favour of the plaintiff because he (Chhatrasal Singh) could not prove that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Punua had voluntarily surrendered the suit-lends in his favour. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had been given only paper possession of the suit-lands in 1951 in execution of the two decrees and that the plaintiff bad never been in actual physical possession of the suit-lands. The plaintiff had never perfected his title by adverse possession. Defendant No.2 Punna in a separate written statement supported Chhatrasal Singh and pleaded that the suit-lands were wrongly recorded to be in the possession of himself and the plaintiff in the revenue papers.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was dispossessed in 1965 and that he was entitled to be restored the possession of the suit-lands the trial Court did not find the plea of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants perferred appeal which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit-lands. The plaintiff had obtained only paper possession and not the actual physical possession of the suit lands in 1951.

6. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff had obtained only the paper possession of the suit lands in execution of the two decrees afore-mentioned is based on misconception of law and is unsupportable in law. The lower appellate Court appears