JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is defendants’ second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sangrur whereby suit for possession against them has been decreed. Trial Court had dismissed the suit, but in appeal, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and the suit decreed.
2. In brief, the facts are that one Bhagwan Singh was owner of the land in suit and after his death, a dispute arose in regard to the succession of his property. The dispute between the heirs when came to be settled by the Civil Court, mutation No. 3957 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession on the basis of title against the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs as set up in the plaint was that during the life time of Bhagwan Singh, defendants were in possession as tenants-at-will on payment of rent and after his death, they instituted civil suit against the plaintiffs whereby they alleged their possession to be adverse and tenancy under the plaintiffs was denied. Plaintiffs thus, claimed that defendants have rendered themselves liable for ejectment. Hence, the suit. Defendants on notice of the suit denied the ownership of the plaintiffs and also the factum of tenancy. They admitted that previously, a suit had been brought by them for injunction; but the same was withdrawn on the basis of statement made by the plaintiffs that they would take possession in accordance with law. Trial Court dismissed the suit by giving a finding that defendants have become owners by adverse possession. In appeal, the first appellate Court lias set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and consequently, suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.
3. In this appeal, it has been contended by counsel for the appellants that in the year 1959 during consolidation proceedings, the Authorities under the Consolidation, Act accepted the appellants to be in adverse possession of the land in dispute. He contended that the plaintiffs never challenged this assertion of the defendants or took any steps to recover possession.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the first appellate Court. It is not in dispute that during the life time of Bhagwan Singh, appellants had been occupying the land as tenants under him and had been paying rent. Rent was not paid to the plaintiffs after the death of Bhagwan Singh as dispute arose between the plaintiffs and others regarding mutation of succession. After the dispute was settled between the heirs and mutation regarding succession was sanctioned, defendants filed suit for declaration that they have become owners by adverse possession and also for injunction that they be not dispossessed forcibly. Later, suit was withdrawn and the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for possession on the basis of title. In order to succeed on the basis of adverse possession, the applicants were required to show by clear and unequivocal evidence that their possession was hostile to the real owners and amounted to a denial of their title to the property claimed. There is no clear evidence by the appellants that they ever set up hostile title against the present plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, there was no occasion for the appellants to set up a hostile title as against the plaintiffs because the dispute in regard to succession of Bhagwan Singh had not been settled. Dispute regarding succession was settled only just before the filing of suit for declaration and injunction by the appellants which later on was withdrawn. Appellants who at one time came in possession as tenants, are estopped from denying title of their landlord or set up a title in them – without surrendering possession. Reference in this regara be made to judgment in Daulat Ram arid Nepal Singh v. Payare Lal and Bhagwar Sahai, 1975 P.L.J: 12, wherein this Court has held that merely because a tenant has stopped paying rent does not mean that he has ceased to be the tenant. Even the setting up of a hostile title in himself by the tenant against his landlord does not put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant unless the tenant first gives up the possession as a tenant and then re-enters adversely to the true owner in his own right. As long as the tenant continuous to be in possession in pursuance of his tenancy, he is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited by the counsel for the appellants.
5. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit shall stand dismissed. No costs.