JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgement and decree dated February 11, 1975 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, reversing the judgement and decree and November 22, 1971 of the learned trial court, thereby decreeing the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Mula was the original tenant of the land in dispute and was untraceable for long. The plaintiff, Chandra Prakash has claimed Sirdari rights through adverse possession. The defendant, Bhajja, has claimed his rights by succession, being nephew of Mula and having been mutated under the order of S.K. dated May 18, 1961. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that Chandra Prakash had not matured his rights of Sirdari and dismissed the suit. The learned trial court gave a finding that the plaintiff was not found in continuous adverse possession for six years and also that Bhajja is the nephew and successor of Mula, deceased. The learned first appellate court has held the possession of Chandra Prakash from 1360F and on that basis held that he had become Sirdar. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record. 4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conclusion drawn by the learned first appellate court from the Khasra and Khatauni entries is not correct. Chandra Prakash has not been recorded Qabiz in 1370F and also there is no record of his possession from 1374F onwards. His possession for the first time was recorded in 1367F in Khatauni 1366-68F in Varg-9. It is settled law that in respect of adverse possession of a trespasser, there can be no presumption of continuity. The adverse possession has to be proved from year to year. Again, the learned Additional Commissioner has without any basis supposed that the plaintiff, Chandra Prakash continued in adverse possession of the land in dispute even after 1359F, though there is no such entry in his favour during the years 1360F. to 1366F. Even in year 1359F. possession of Chandra Prakash as Zamindar on half of the plot and possession of Prithipal Singh, Zamindar on another half is recorded. to 1366F. Even in year 1359F. possession of Chandra Prakash as Zamindar on half of the plot and possession of Prithipal Singh, Zamindar on another half is recorded. This possession as Zamindar during the period before vesting cannot be held to be equivalent of cultivatory possession. Further there is no entry as to the possession in the year 1360F. Hence the adverse possession could not be concluded from the entries in record by the learned first appellate court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited ruling reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 355 wherein it is held that the possession would be presumed to continue unless evicted therefrom. However, this relates to possession on a residential house and must be distinguished from the cultivatory possession in a plot. Even the adverse possession is through cultivation of the plot and this act alone establishes his possession. The cultivatory possession may not continue from year to year even if not evicted, just because the person in adverse possession may not choose to cultivate the plot for one or more years and may resume cultivation later on. Thus evicted in the case of adverse possession cannot form the sole basis of a test whether the adverse possession continued or not. Hence it would be erroneous to conclude that the possession continued from 1360F onwards or even from 1368F onwards just because Chandra Prakash was not evicted from the land in dispute. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner has based his inference on the documentary evidence and his presumption of continuity of possession of the plaintiff which in view of the above discussion, does not hold good. His findings and judgement cannot, therefore, be upheld and must be set aside. 7. I accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree of the learned first appellate court dated February 11, 1975 and confirm the judgement and decree by the learned trial court dated November 22, 1971.