After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. In fact, the entire case of of the defendants-appellants before the Courts below was that the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of the plot in dispute were wrong and that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, namely, Pirthi had purchased the plot in dispute from Smt. Darka wife of Lakhi adopted son of Har Lal vide agreement Exhibit D.W.1/C. Jamabandi (Exhibit P.1) reveals that earlier Har Lal son of Jamna was owner in possession of the plot in dispute. This fact was not disputed by the defendants in the written statement. Admittedly, after the death of Har Lal, mutation of inheritance of Har Lal was sanctioned in favour of his daughters, namely, Bohti and Shanti, mothers of the plaintiff-respondents, in equal shares.
