JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979 rendered by the Additional District Judge Amritsar and the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1975 rendered by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ajnala.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land which was fully described in the head-note of the plaint on the ground that he is the owner of the suit land and defendant No. 2 who was originally in possession as tenant of this land has refused to pay any rent of the land to the plaintiff as defendant No. 2 had accepted defendant No. 1 as the land-lord being the sole legal heir of Swami Durga Puri (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who was the original owner of the suit land. Plaintiff claims to be the Chela of the deceased as well as the holder and the owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 also claims to be the Chela of the deceased as well as being his son. Defendant No. 2 is admittedly the tenant on the suit land and has been in possession throughout the proceedings. At the time of the admission of the Regular Second Appeal, the dispossession of defendant No. 2 who is appellant in the present Regular Second Appeal has been stayed. He thus continues to be in possession of the suit land even today. The plaintiff claims ownership of the land on the basis that the deceased had adopted the plaintiff as the Chela. Therefore, according to the tradition and custom by which the deceased was governed, the plaintiff had become the only legal heir. The plaintiff also claims that de-fendent No. 1 was not the Chela of the deceased. Furthermore, defendant No. 2 had denied the title of the plaintiff and had, therefore, become a trespasser. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2. It was claimed that the deceased had appointed defendant No. 1 as the Chela. Therefore, defendant NoJ became the legal heir to the Gaddi of the deceased. Defendant No. 1 took possession of the suit land on the death of the original land hoider/owner. Thereafter, the possession of the land had been delivered to defendant No. 2 as tenant. At the time of filing of the suit, defendant No. 1 and 2 had been in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. They, therefore, also claim ownership rights on the basis of adverse possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court;-
“1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit? OPP
3. Whether the defendant No. 2 has been in possession of the land as tenant under defendant No. 1, if so when and its effect?
4. Whether the defendant No. 2 has become owner by adverse possession?
5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction?
6. Relief.”
3. Evidence was led by both the parties before the trial Court. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 has failed to prove that he had ever been appointed as a Chela. On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was the Chela of the deceased. The trial court also held that defendant No. 2 had been in cultivating possession of the suit land since Rabi 1965. It has also been held that defendant No. 2 was recognised as the tenant of defendant No. 1. The trial court negatived the plea of the defendants with regard to adverse possession. The lower appellate court has held that the plaintiff has been proved to be the Chela of the deceased. However, after appreciating the evidence, lower appellate court gave a significant finding of fact as follows:-
“7. .. In the case before me it is nobody’s contention that the property in dispute was the property of a religion institution or endowment. On the contrary, there are several indications on record that the property in dispute was secular belonging to Swami Durgapuri.”
4. Inspite of this findings, the lower appellate court has upheld the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2.
5. Mr. Majitha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the nature of the holding of the property has to be pleaded and proved. In the present case, the plaintiff had given absolutely no proof of the custom by which the plaintiff could have been appointed as the Chela. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As noticed earlier the trial court itself has given a finding of fact to the effect that both the parties have proceeded on the assumption that the property did not belong to a religious institution or endowment. That being the position, clearly defendant No. 1 would have succeeded to the property by natural succession. It was the duty of the plaintiff to plead and prove that the land was belonging to a particular religious institution/endowment. It was also necessary for the plaintiff to prove the particular custom which may have been peculiar to the Gaddi which is said to have been inherited by the plaintiff. In fact the suit land has been mutated in favour of defendant No. 1 since 1965. Defendant no.2 had been shown to be in cultivating possession of the land as tenant under defendant No. 1. The suit itself had been filed in 1974 whereas the original owner died in the year 1958. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the judgments of both the courts below cannot be supported on any of the grounds mentioned by the plaintiff.
6. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree
dated 15.11.1997 rendered by Additional District Judge, Amritsar and the judgment and
decree dated 24.2.1979 rendered by Subordinate Judge 1st class, Ajnala are hereby set
aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs.