JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhatakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of Act I of 1951, against the judgment and decree dated June 4, 1981 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dismissing the appeal of the defendant against the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1979 passed by Additional S.D.O. Meerut in a case under Section 209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Kesho Ram. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the plaintiff Kesho Ram brought a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that he is the real brother and the heir of deceased Chandrabal who was Bhumidhar of the plot in suit. The defendant has forcibly occupied the land from 1376 Fasli, hence he is liable to ejectment. A relief for the ejectment of the defendant was, therefore sought by the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Gopi on the ground that Chandrabal is alive and plaintiff has no title in the land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had earlier too brought a suit against defendant for the declaration of his title on the allegation that Chandrabal had died but the suit was dismissed because the death of Chandrabal had not been proved. It was, therefore, asserted that this suit is barred by res-judicata. The defendant claimed to have perfected his title by adverse possession. 4. The trial court framed 8 issues and decreed the suit. It also held that the death of Chandrabal has occurred and that the defendant had not been able to prove that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. On appeal by the defendant the judgment of the trial court was upheld, hence this second appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record and the impugned judgment. 6. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the death of Chandrabal has not been proved by the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the finding of both the courts below are incorrect. 7. After going through the evidence on record I find little force in this argument. The mutation in favour of the plaintiff on the death of the tenure-holder has already been effected as is evident from the Khatauni of 1384 to 1389 Fasli. 7. After going through the evidence on record I find little force in this argument. The mutation in favour of the plaintiff on the death of the tenure-holder has already been effected as is evident from the Khatauni of 1384 to 1389 Fasli. It itself is a strong piece of evidence about the death of Chandrabal. The plaintiff having already been recorded as the tenant in chief burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the entries are not correct. Though the defendant produced himself and one more witness Ajab Singh who states that Chandrabal is alive but no efforts were made to produce him before the court. According to the plaintiff's evidence Chandrabal left the village about 30 years back and since then he has not been heard. In such circumstances the finding of the trial court in accepting the case of the plaintiff about the death of Chandrabal seems to be correct and it was rightly upheld by the lower appellate court was well. 8. Now it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in an earlier suit also the plaintiff had come up with the theory that Chandrabal should be presumed to be dead because he had not been heard for more than 7 years but his suit was dismissed, being that finding operates as resjudicata. This argument has been repelled by both the courts below. In my opinion too this argument has lost all its merit after the mutation having been effected in favour of the plaintiff. However if Chandrabal had been really alive he could easily be produced by the defendant. Besides this in the previous case a copy of the judgment of which case is on record. The finding that was held was that the plaintiff has not been able to made it the case of presumption of the death of Chandrabal and i.e. why the suit was dismissed. In the instant case the plaintiff has not come with the theory of presumption of death but he has come up with the case that Chandrabal has died and his assertion has been observed by both the courts below. In the instant case the plaintiff has not come with the theory of presumption of death but he has come up with the case that Chandrabal has died and his assertion has been observed by both the courts below. The previous judgment, therefore, would not operate as resjudicate on two grounds, firstly that more period has elapsed since the date of the judgment of the suit namely, January 23, 1971 and secondly that mutation has already been made in favour of the plaintiff and he has been recorded as Bhumidhar of both the plots. In such circumstances the previous judgment is not to operate as resjudicata because the issues framed in both the suit is entirely different. The finding of both the courts below on this point is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with. 9. Now as regards the question of the perfection of title by the defendant on adverse possession he has come up with the theory that he has been cultivating this land for last about 22 or 27 years. He has however admitted that the village has gone under consolidation operation but he has not filled the objection before any consolidation court about the land in dispute. His adverse possession can, therefore, be reckoned only after the consolidation proceeding ceased. He has stated that Chakbandi had finished about 20-21 years back but he could not file any document in support of his contention. The name of Chandrabal ans main tenant continued to be recorded up to 1375 Fasli and the name of the defendant do not find any place in the Khasra upto that year, in 1376 Fasli as evident from Khatauni of 1384 to 1389 Fasli. Thus the documentary evidence support the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been in possession only from 1376 Fasli and not from before. A great stress was laid on the evidence of PW 1 Dewat who had stated that the possession of the defendant have been from consolidation operation and it was argued in view of this statement that the possession of the defendant should be deemed to have ben continuing for the last 20 or 21 years because according to this witness also consolidation operation had finished about 20 or 21 years back. I do not find much force in this argument because the statement given by the witness does not seem to have been very cautiously or carefully made. He seemed to have given only a casual reference about the possession. At another place he clearly stated that the possession of the defendant started after consolidation operation. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the defendant to have proved by documentary evidence as to when the consolidation operation had finished and de-notification had been made. In the absence of such evidence no presumption can be drawn about the possession of the defendant more so because consolidation operation in a village continue for years together and it is not merely one days work. The burden to prove that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession lies upon him and it was his responsibility to have proved beyond doubt that he has been in continuous possession for more than the prescribed period in which he has miserably failed. The plaintiff has proved the possession of the defendant only from 1376 Fasli and hence for ejectment was perfectly within limitation and was rightly decreed. The judgment delivered by both the courts below do not suffer from any defect, hence there is no reason to interfere in the same. 10. In view of the above discussion I find no force in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.