(10) Gulab Singh (PW-3), one of the witness to the sale deed, has already been examined before the trial Court and also supported the fact of alienation made by Gorelal and Karan Sai in favour of the plaintiff but has held that now the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit land and the defendants are in possession of the same. He has been cross-examined in detail, but nothing has been brought on record to hold that Gorelal and Karan Sai had not alienated the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that Gorelal and Karan Sai had sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P-5, which was duly recorded in the revenue records vide Ex.P-4 by the order of Assistant Bandobast Adhikari directing mutation in favour of the plaintiff relying upon affidavit filed by the sellors and they have made no objection if the name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record, as such, the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below that Gorelal and Karan Sai has sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P-5 is a finding of fact based on material available on record in view of statement made by Gorelal (DW-3) before the Assistant Bandobast Adhikari way back on 17.05.1990 admitting the sale in favour of plaintiff, his subsequent statement in this suit cannot be relied upon to non suit the plaintiff and, as such, I do not find it either perverse of contrary to the record. Thus, the substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
