in the zamindari return, the name of the plaintiffs has not been mentioned as settlee of the land rather the defendants have brought a notification dated 02.01.1953 which clearly suggests that the land of Plot NO. 4101 (which is subject matter of the case) is protected forest area and the said notification has already been notified in official gazette. Further in respect of Ext.5, which the plaintiffs heavily relied upon, both the courts below dis-believed the same and have reached at a conclusion that the same is a manufactured document, which is after thought, prepared with a motive to grab the suit land. Possessing of land for long period of time does confer any right, title and interest over the suit land. Further the payment of rent is not a conclusive proof of title over the property in question. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of facts arrived at by the trial court and has independently held that the plaintiffs has failed to prove their right, title and interest over the suit land.. 9. Since both the courts below have concurrently given finding of facts that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession over the land in question, rather there is a notification that the suit land is protected forest area, no relief(s) can be granted to the appellants in this appeal.
