JUDGMENT : 1. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession on the ground that the appellants-defendants were trespassers on the land owned by them. The suit land comprised of 282 kanals and 6 marlas situated in village Samora, District Karnal, Haryana. The Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of part of the land on which the appellants were held to be trespassers. The suit in respect of the remaining land was dismissed on the finding that the appellants were in possession of the, land as tenants. The respondents-plaintiffs challenged the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit in respect of part of the land. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit in toto. The regular second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court in limine. This appeal by the defendants is against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court as upheld by the High Court. The Trial Court found the appellants in possession of the part of the land as tenants on the following reasoning : "The ownership of the disputed property of the plaintiffs is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that defendants are in possession of the suit land. Now it is to be decided whether the defendants are in possession of the suit property as tenants or their possession is unauthorised and they are mere- trespassers on the suit land. In the column of cultivation in the revenue record copy of jamabandi 1979-80 and copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.D.8 in the crop kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 and in the copies of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1978 to Kharif 1980 the defendants are shown in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants. In the column of rent it is mentioned that no rent is paid due to reclamation of the suit land (Billa Lagan Baweja No. Tore). It is also clear from the evidence as well as from the pleadings on the file that any rent in cash or kind was never paid to the plaintiffs landowners. It is also admitted that the defendants into possession over the suit land in Kharif 1975. In the copy of Jamabandi 1974-75 Ex.D-7 plaintiffs are shown in possession of the suit land in the column of cultivation. It is also admitted that the defendants into possession over the suit land in Kharif 1975. In the copy of Jamabandi 1974-75 Ex.D-7 plaintiffs are shown in possession of the suit land in the column of cultivation. It is mentioned that the possession is Malkhana possession and the suit land is mentioned as Banjar Qadeem except few Khasra numbers which I am going to discuss............It is also clear from the revenue record that the land which was Banjar Qadeem before 1975 have been reclaimed and is under cultivation and irrigated. It is also clear from the evidence that the land which was in the possession of the owners before Kharif 1975 was Banjar Qadeem...................... As per my observation above it is proved that the defendants have installed three tube wells over the suit land and have levelled the suit land and reclaimed it during their possession over the suit land after kharif 1975 and the amount of Rs. 1650/- incurred by the defendants to level the suit land is also proved on the file................... After hearing arguments at length I am of the opinion although no rent was paid to the land owners regarding each crop but this fact cannot be denied that the defendants have spent a huge amount to reclaim the suit land and for installing three tubewells over it. In my opinion the amount was spent only with this understanding that the land owners will not receive any rent from the defendants for some period and that period I cannot definitely hold as there is no such agreement between the parties in writing. It is clear from the conduct of the land owners also that they remained mum for such a long period from Kharif 1975 up to the date of filing of the suit. Certainly the main reason was that there was understanding between the parties that rent will not be paid if land is reclaimed by the defendants." The above quoted findings of the Trial Court were reversed by the Lower Appellate Court primarily on the ground that the appellants had not been paying rent/batai or mesne profits to the respondents-plaintiffs for cultivating the land. The Trial Court, as quoted above, found as a fact on the basis of evidence on the record that the rent/batai was not being paid because the appellants had converted the banjar-land into cultivatable by spending money and labour. The Trial Court, as quoted above, found as a fact on the basis of evidence on the record that the rent/batai was not being paid because the appellants had converted the banjar-land into cultivatable by spending money and labour. Apart from that it was also found by the Trial Court that three tubewells were sunk on the land and further money was spent on levelling the same. The Lower Appellate court reversed the findings of the Trial Court without taking into consideration the evidence on the record which was fully discussed by the Trial Court. We are of the view that the Lower Appellate Court misread the evidence on the record and acted in perverse manner in setting aside the well reasoned findings of the Trial Court based on cogent evidence. 2. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. No costs. Appeal allowed.