Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession of land measuring 81 kanals 6 mar-las situated in village Bhular Tehsil Tarn Taran was ordered to be decreed. 2. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for possession on the plea that the suit land was owned by one Jhanda Singh son of Lakha Singh of village Bhullar Tehsil Tarn Taran. It was alleged in the plaint that said Jhanda Singh died 10-12 years before the institution of the suit and on his death, Ram Singh, Dhan Singh and Sardul Singh, his first cousin brothers and Smt. Tejo his cousin sister being his legal heirs became entitled to succeed to the suit land. It was claimed that the plaintiffs being the heirs of Jhanda Singh deceased were entitled to succeed to his estate. Gian Singh son of Prem Singh claimed the ownership of the suit land on the basis of Will dated 8.2.1993. On the death of Gian Singh his son Amarjit Singh minor brought a suit through his uncle Joginder Singh as guardian and claimed the suit property. Said suit was dismissed oh 19.3.1970 and appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 28.7.1971. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a civil suit against Amarjit Singh for possession of the land but he chose not to appear. Joginder Singh defendant pleaded that other defendants were in possession of the suit land in their own right and Amarjit Singh did not occupy the land. Said suit was subsequently withdrawn with the permission of the court and thereafter present suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by Amarjit Singh who filed written statement to the suit while the appellant Gurdas Singh and others filed a joint written statement taking a plea that they were tenants under Jhanda Singh deceased who had died about 15 years back and after his death they were cultivating the suit land as owners in possession as they perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Other preliminary objections were also taken. 4. on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following is-sues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are collateral of Jhanda Singh deceased and are heirs and successors and entitled to possession? OPP 2. Other preliminary objections were also taken. 4. on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following is-sues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are collateral of Jhanda Singh deceased and are heirs and successors and entitled to possession? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no right to sue? OPD 6. Whether the possession of defendant has matured into ownership by way of adverse possession? OPD 7. Whether Jhanda Singh died 20 years ago and the defendants were tenants under himself? If so its effect on the present suit? OPD 8. Whether there was any previous litigation between the parties on the present cause of action. If so its effect? OPD ] 8-A. What is the effect of non-payment of costs of the previous suit on this suit? OPD On appreciation of evidence, learned courts below have held that the plaintiffs being collateral of Jhanda Singh deceased were heirs and successors and therefore, entitled to the possession. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Issue No. 5 was not pressed. However, on issue No. 6 learned courts below in view of the evidence led have recorded a finding that the defendant-appellants failed to substantiate the plea that they became owners by adverse possession. 5. On issue No. 7 it was decided that the defendants were not tenants under Jhanda Singh. Issues No. 7 and 8-A were also decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and the suit was accordingly decreed. 6. In appeal findings of the learned trial Court have been affirmed. 7. Learned Lower appellate Court has been pleased to record that the plea of the defendant-appellants that they had become owners by adverse possession was too flimsy, false and ill-founded as there was no evidence led to prove the same. It was also pointed out that the plea of adverse possession is contradictory that they were also claiming themselves the owners of the property though that fact was also proved against them. Learned courts below thereafter on the basis of evidence, documentary as well as oral, came to a conclusion that the suit was merely filed to delay the delivery of possession in the true owner. 8. Mr. Learned courts below thereafter on the basis of evidence, documentary as well as oral, came to a conclusion that the suit was merely filed to delay the delivery of possession in the true owner. 8. Mr. I.K. Mehta, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that on issue No. 7, learned trial court was pleased to record a finding that as on issue No. 6 it was held that the defendants have failed to prove that their possession had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession, this issue did not arise. Accordingly, finding recorded. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial Court was bound to record a specific finding regarding the question of tenancy as a plea was raised in this regard. However, reading of the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court shows that no such plea was raised by the appellant-defendants before the learned lower appellate Court and it was only pleaded that the findings regarding adverse possession should not be sustained. Once the appellant-defendants had denied the title of the landlord they were not entitled to retain the possession and therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded on issue No. 7 as is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for adjudication by this Court. Dismissed.