After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention raised before this Court. Kartar Singh, the predecessorin-interest of the appellants had based his claim on a sale deed qua the suit land which was purchased by his father. He failed to establish from the contents of the sale deed which he had produced as Exhibit P1 that the property reflected therein was the same as the suit property. The identity of the suit property was not established by any cogent material on record. There is also evidence on record to show that Kartar Singh had already fought five rounds of litigation regarding the suit property, but even the judgments rendered therein were not proved in accordance with law. Exhibits D2 to D5 are the plaints of the suit filed by Kartar Singh against different persons, but the same were not pursued by him Exhibit D6 is the copy of the civil suit filed by Harbans Singh, attorney of Kartar Singh, against Bakshish Singh (respondent no.2) and Exhibit D7 is the order of dismissal of the suit which was withdrawn on 9.9.1999. The revenue record produced by the respondents also does not depict the name of Kartar Singh to be in possession of the suit property. There is no other material which Kartar Singh himself had produced to substantiate his claim of ownership and possession over the suit property. Consequently, the findings of fact which have been recorded by the Courts below on the basis of revenue record cannot be termed to be incorrect so as to warrant interference in the
