ants since long before the enforcement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves(cid:26)ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (“the 1952 Act”). On commence- ment of the Act, his father acquired ownership rights by opera(cid:26)on of law. The plain(cid:26)ff alleged that in the revenue record, the defendant con(cid:26)nued to be shown as owner and the plain(cid:26)ff as a tenant on batai (cid:6)hai (on payment of 1/3 produce), which was incorrect. On receiving no(cid:26)ce dated 09.03.1987 from the defendant, he filed the suit seeking declara(cid:26)on of ownership and correc(cid:26)on of revenue entries. Alterna(cid:26)vely, he claimed ownership by adverse possession on account of his long, con(cid:26)nuous and hos(cid:26)le possession.

4. Defendant’s Case: The defendant resisted the suit, pleading that the plain(cid:26)ff was merely cul(cid:26)va(cid:26)ng the land on payment of one-third batai and had never acquired occupancy rights. He also denied the plea of adverse possession.

5. Trial Court Findings: A4er framing of the issues and taking evi- dence, the trial Court decreed the suit by relying upon jamabandis from 1923-24 onwards and found that Mam Raj, father of the plain(cid:26)ff, was consis- tently recorded as occupancy tenant up to 1951-52. Applying Sec(cid:26)on 3 of the 1952 Act, it held that the plain(cid:26)ff’s father had become owner of the suit land by opera(cid:26)on of law. Later entries showing the defendant as owner and the plain(cid:26)ff as tenant at will were declared wrong and void. The suit was accord-

ingly decreed.

6. First Appellate Court Findings: The First Appellate Court, how- ever, raised a suo motu doubt about the iden(cid:26)ty of the suit land. Referring to jamabandis from 1960-61 onwards, it concluded that the defendant was recorded as owner and the plain(cid:26)ff as a non-occupancy tenant on batai (cid:6)hai.

On this basis, it dismissed the suit.

7. Submissions: (i) Assailing the reversal, Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdic(cid:26)on in raising a new plea regarding iden(cid:26)ty of land, which was never set up in the wri=en statement, not put to the witnesses, nor even argued before the trial Court. It was contended that such a ground could not have been made out suo motu, relying on se=led law [Siddu Venkappa Devadiga v. Rangu S. De- vadiga, 1977 AIR SC 890; Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde and others v.

Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde and others, AIR 2003 SC 160].

(ii) It is further submi=ed that the documentary evidence from 1923-24 to 1956-57 consistently recorded Mam Raj as occupancy tenant. Under Sec(cid:26)on 3 of the 1952 Act, he automa(cid:26)cally became the owner on the appointed date, and subsequent entries showing him as gair maurusi were erroneous. Reliance is also placed on Durga (Deceased) and others v. Milkhi Ram and others, 1969 PLJ 105, to argue that later entries made without proper muta(cid:26)on or authority cannot dislodge earlier consistent entries.

8. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supported the First Appellate Court judgment, arguing that the plain(cid:26)ff failed to prove con-

(cid:26)nuity of occupancy tenancy in respect of the suit land.

9. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the en(cid:26)re record carefully.

10. The following substan(cid:26)al ques(cid:26)ons of law arise for considera(cid:26)on in this appeal:

(cid:1) Whether the First Appellate Court was jus(cid:26)fied in raising a suo motu dispute regarding iden(cid:26)ty of the suit land when no such plea was raised in the pleadings, evidence, or grounds of appeal by the defend-

ant?

(cid:1) Whether, in view of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves(cid:26)ng of Propri-

etary Rights) Act, 1952, the plain(cid:26)ff’s father, who was recorded as an occupancy tenant prior to the appointed date, became the owner of the suit land by opera(cid:26)on of law?

(cid:1) Whether subsequent revenue entries showing the defendant as owner an