Sahib Singh and Another v. Malika Arora and Others

IN T

Sahib Singh and Malika Arora an

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Ms

for

MANDEEP PA

1.

defendants, Sah both the Courts Arora and other decreed for pos dispute.

2.

Tejpal Singh, fi bearing Khasra per Jamabandi f THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

d Another

VERSUS nd Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and s. Gagan Bir Kaur, Advocate for s. Meena Bansal, Advocate contesting respondents No.1 to -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appea hib Singh and another, against th below whereby the suit filed by rs, who are the legal representat ssession and permanent injunct e plaintiffs–respondents, who a led a suit for possession of plot No. 12R/16/1 (3–0), Khewat N for the year 2008–2009, situated

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1371-2025 (O&M) served on:-14.10.2025 ate of Decision : 27.10.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellants.

¶4al has been filed by the appellan he concurrent findings recorded the plaintiffs–respondents, Mall tives of late Tejpal Singh, has b tion in respect of the property are the widow and children of l and house measuring three kan No. 469 and Khatauni No. 578/1 d in village Faizpura, Tehsil Bat

- nts– d by lika een y in late nals, , as tala,

District Gurdas restraining the property illegall Brief Facts

3.

Bri of plaintiff No. property as per Mohan Singh, s consideration of execution of th sanctioned in h Jamabandi as o said mutation. S possession of th rooms, one kitch plants and main he used to resid the suit land.

4.

It i possession of th defendant Sahib Tejpal Singh be 'Sahib Singh v. That suit was d spur, along with consequentia defendants from constructing o ly, forcibly, and without due cou iefly stated, the case of the plain .1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 the revenue record. Tejpal Singh on of Natha Singh, vide register f ₹13,800/–, and obtained physic he sale deed. Mutation No.4 his favour. The name of Tejpa wner in possession by the reve Since the date of purchase, Tejpa he suit land. He was residing in hen, and one bathroom on the su ntaining a kitchen garden in part de in his property. The defendan s further pleaded that in the yea he property illegally and forcibly b Singh filed a false civil suit efore the Court of Sub Judge I Tejpal Singh', only to harass T dismissed as withdrawn on 08

al relief of permanent injunct or changing the nature of the urse of law. ntiffs is that Tejpal Singh, husb 2 to 4, was the owner of the h had purchased the said land fr red sale deed dated 15.05.1974 fo cal possession thereof at the time 4102 dated 05.11.1997 was d al Singh was also entered in enue authorities on the basis of al Singh remained in ownership n Bombay but had constructed t uit property, besides planting sm t of it. Whenever he visited Bat nts have no right, title, or interes ar 1994, the defendants tried to t , but were unsuccessful. Thereaf t for permanent injunction aga Ist Class, Batala, which was tit Tejpal Singh and grab the prope

8.06.1994. Subsequently, the sa

- tion suit suit rom or a e of duly two mall tala, st in take fter, inst tled erty.

defendant again the Civil Court Singh Kataria,

18.01.1997, hol he was not in p learned Additio Thereafter, Sahi Court by conce obtain an interim dispossessed "ex Court.

5.

It i Suit No. 383 declaration befo Subsequently, S "Sahib Singh v. parte at the back neither acquired plaintiffs, being were fully awar when the plainti the defendants h Despite requests the present suit o n filed another suit for permanen t, Batala, which too was dismis PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Divis ding that Sahib Singh was not e possession. The appeal filed by onal District Judge, Gurdaspur, ib Singh filed Regular Second A ealing material facts and, thoug m order dated 02.09.2003, whe xcept in due course of law." Tha s further submitted that Tejpal S dated 02.07.1994 titled "Tejp fore the Civil Court, Batala, w Sahib Singh filed another Civil S Tejpal Singh and others" for k of Tejpal Singh. However, even d possession nor had any right g permanent residents of Bomb re of their absence. After the dea iffs came to Batala in January 20 had taken illegal possession of t s to vacate, the defendants refus on 28.04.2015.

nt injunction on 18.07.1994 bef ssed by the Court of Shri Ama sion), Batala, vide judgment da entitled to the relief of injunction Sahib Singh was dismissed by vide judgment dated 28.10.19 Appeal No. 3048 of 2000 before t gh not in possession, managed ereby he was restrained from be at appeal is still pending before t Singh himself had earlier filed C pal Singh v. Mohan Singh", which was decreed in his favo Suit No. 552 dated 26.11.1994 tit declaration, which was decreed n during that period, the defenda or title over the suit property. T bay, submitted that the defenda ath of Tejpal Singh on 05.08.20 015, they were shocked to find t the property about a month earl sed, compelling the plaintiffs to

- fore arjit ated n as

¶999this d to eing this Civil for our. tled d ex ants ants 014, that lier.

6.

Up raising prelimin concealment of alleged that pl regarding the sa name of Sahib S that his possess denied that Tej ownership and further averred Singh as sale co in the earlier l However, no wr

7.

possession, or th mutation No.41 were stated to b Tejpal Singh ov that the defend 1994, and by vir pleaded that the they were in pos

8.

Rep the plaintiffs. on notice, the defendants appe nary objections regarding main f facts, and pendency of litigat laintiff No.4 had moved a c ame property. It was pleaded t Singh as Gair Marusi due to con ion has become adverse to that jpal Singh was the owner as possession by virtue of long a that Tejpal Singh had received onsideration, as disclosed by the litigation titled "Sahib Singh ritten receipt was available. e defendants denied that M hat any valid sale deed was exec 02 dated 05.11.1997 and the su e wrong, void, and not binding u ver the suit property was specif dants had been in continuous, o rtue of adverse possession, had b eir names in the revenue record ssession as Gair Marusi occupan plication, reiterating the content

eared and filed a written statem ntainability, lack of locus stan ion before this Court. It was a omplaint against defendant N that the revenue record shows ntinuous possession since 1994, of the plaintiffs. On merits, it w alleged. The defendants claim and continuous occupation. It w d ₹20,000/– from defendant Sa defendant in his statement recor v. Tejpal Singh" on 05.05.19 Mohan Singh was the owner cuted in favour of Tejpal Singh. T ubsequent entries in the Jamaba upon their rights. The possession fically denied. It was further sta open, and hostile possession si become owners thereof. It was a d were correctly reflected, and t nts. ts of the plaints, was also filed

- ment ndi, also No.2 was med was ahib ded

¶996in andi n of ated ince also that

9.

Fro following issues

¶1pra

¶2cha

3.

¶4han

¶5pre

¶6pro

7.

10.

Bo of their respectiv

11.

Gen Dea Ide Sal Mu Jam (Ex om the pleadings of the parties, s for determination: Whether the plaintiffs are en ayed for? OPP Whether the defendants in ange the nature of the suit proper Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiffs have nds? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have esent suit? OPD Whether the defendants h operty by way of adverse possess Relief. oth the parties led oral as well a ve claims. e plaintiffs produced the followin neral Power of Attorney (Ex. P1) ath Certificate of Tejpal Singh (E entity proofs of the plaintiffs (Ex. le Deed dated 15.05.1974 (Ex. P utation No. 4102 (Ex. P8); mabandis for the years 1998–1 x. P9 to Ex. P11);

the learned trial Court framed ntitled to the relief of possession ntend to make construction or rty? OPP tainable in the present form? OP not come to the Court with cl e got no locus standi to file have become owners of the sion over the same? OPD as documentary evidence in supp ng documents on record: 1); (Ex. P2); P3 to P6); P7); 1999, 2003–2004, and 2008–20

- n as r to D lean suit

Kha Cop App Cop Ord rep Jud v. M Jud

12.

On the following do Cer Cer Cer Cer Cer Cer Ele Pho Cer Cer

¶18Cer Att asra Girdawari and site plan (Ex py of Judgment dated 18.01.199 pellate judgment dated 28.10.19 py of Regular Second Appeal file der dated

09.03.2015 reg presentatives of Tejpal Singh (Ex dgment in Civil Suit No. 383 da Mohan Singh (Ex. P18); and dgment in Civil Suit No. 552 date n the other hand, the defendants ocuments: rtified copy of plaint (Ex. D2); rtified copy of written statement rtified copy of cross-examination rtified copy of order of this Cour rtified copies of Jamabandis (Ex rtified copies of Khasra Girdawa ectricity bills (Ex. D12 and D13) otocopies of receipts of electricit rtified copy of electricity connec rtified copies of judgments an

01.1997 (Ex. D15 to D18); rtified copy of order of Civil Cou ested copy of complaint (Ex. D2

Ex. P12 and Ex. P13); 7 (Ex. P14); 99 (Ex. P15); ed by Sahib Singh (Ex. P16); garding impleadment of le x. P17); ted 02.07.1994 titled Tejpal Sin ed 26.11.1994 (Ex. P19). examined witnesses and produ (Ex. D3); n of Sahib Singh (Ex. D4); rt (Ex. D5); x. D6 to D8); ari (Ex. D9 to D11); ; ty bills (Mark A and Mark B); ction documents (Ex. D14); nd decrees dated 25.10.1999 a urt, Batala (Ex. D19); and 0).

- egal ngh

Findings of the

13.

entitlement to discharged by

15.04.1974 (Ex registration of th and the Court regarding the sa defendants deni revenue record the column of ow

14.

Wi defendants, the be specifically p order of this C mentioned that t dispute except i confer ownershi being the legal h of action to ins availed the due l

15.

succeed, posses under a claim o e Trial Court e learned trial Court observed th possession was upon the pl producing the certified copy o x. P7) executed in favour of Te his document was proved on rec had earlier permitted the plain ame vide order dated 18.01.2017 ied the ownership of Tejpal Sin (Ex. D6 to Ex. D11) clearly ref wnership. th regard to the plea of ad Court held that such a plea can b proved by cogent evidence. The Court (Ex.D5) passed in the the present defendant shall not b in due course of law. The Cou ip and merely preserved posses heirs of Tejpal Singh who died titute the present suit after his legal recourse available to them. e Court further explained that fo ssion must be actual, open, uni of right for the statutory period.

hat the onus to prove ownership a laintiffs, which they successfu of the registered sale deed da ejpal Singh by Mohan Singh. T cord through PW-3 Paramjeet Ka ntiffs to lead secondary evide

¶7It was noticed that, although ngh in their written statement, flected the name of Tejpal Singh dverse possession raised by be taken only as a defence and m defendants relied upon the inte earlier litigation, wherein it w be dispossessed from the property urt observed that this order did ssion subject to law. The plainti on 05.08.2014, had acquired ca death and had, by filing the sam . or a claim of adverse possession interrupted, hostile, exclusive, . Any deficiency in these eleme

- ully ated aur, nce h in must rim was y in not iffs, ause me, n to

prevents posses have failed to e found that thou adverse and rem or declaration de

16.

Ref Zile Singh and Government of Waghaji Jat v. B trial Court reit possession unles emphasized that takes clandesti unlawfully cann

17.

property in dis "Bungalow." Th indicated their r Court found fr admitted that Te The defendants reliable evidenc

18.

It w on one hand all ssion from ripening into owners establish that their possession wa ugh the defendants were in pos mained subordinate to the owner enying the title of the true owner ferring to judicial precedents, in d others [2006(3) RCR (Civil) 9 f India and others [2004(2) RC Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harij terated that mere long posses ss it is hostile, open, and to the k t the law does not intend to rew ne possession in contraventio not ripen into ownership merely w e trial Court noted from the cr spute was situated in a resid he defendants' queries regarding reluctance to vacate despite the a om the testimony of DW-2 th ejpal Singh was the owner of the ' claim of ownership was uns e, and their assertions were foun was also recorded that the defend leging purchase of the property

ship. The defendants were held as hostile to the true owner. It w ssession, such possession was rship of Tejpal Singh. No overt r was proved. ncluding Bhim Singh and other 97]; Karnataka Board of Wakf CR (Civil) 702 (SC)]; and Hem ijan [2008(4) RCR (Civil) 401], ssion does not constitute adve knowledge of the true owner. It w ward a trespasser or a person w on of law. Possession obtain with the passage of time. ross-examination of PW-1 that dential area and described as g the market value of the prope appreciation in property prices. T hat even the defence witness h e property as per the revenue reco supported by any corroborative nd to be false and frivolous. dants had taken inconsistent stan by payment of ₹20,000/- to Tej

- d to was not act rs v. f v. maji erse was who ned s a erty had ord. e or nds,

Singh, and on t Such contradict produced regard insufficient. The the pendency of The Court held the defendants legal heirs. Acco

19.

It w notice to the de relied upon onl disputed its iden no significance and oral evidenc

20.

In proved their ow failed to substan were also held e property by the defendants were which the plain defendants were the nature of the

the other hand claiming owners ory pleas could not coexist. No ding the alleged payment, and e earlier suits filed between the f RSA No. 3048 of 2000 before that despite such prolonged lit had never been recognized or ordingly, the plea of adverse pos was further held that the presen efendants to vacate the suit pro ly for identification of the prop ntity. The counter site plan filed as ownership of Tejpal Singh s ce. light of these findings, the Cou wnership and entitlement to pos ntiate any right, title, or claim of entitled to protection against ille e defendants. The suit was acc e directed to vacate the suit pr ntiffs could have it vacated t e permanently restrained from ra e suit property illegally or withou

ship by way of adverse possessi o documentary proof or receipt w d oral statements alone were h parties in 1994 and thereafter, the High Court, were duly notic igation, the claim of ownership acceded to by Tejpal Singh or ssession was rejected. nt suit itself operated as suffici operty. The site plan (Ex.P13) w perty, and the defendants had by the defendants was held to be stood proved through document urt concluded that the plaintiffs h ssession, while the defendants h f adverse possession. The plaint gal construction or alteration of cordingly decreed with costs. T roperty within two months, fail through due process of law. T aising any construction or chang ut due course of law.

- ion. was held ced. p by his ient was not e of tary had had tiffs f the ling

Findings of the

21.

appellants/defen was contended property since 1 also alleged tha for the property The possession were in uninterr

22.

representatives o the basis of the deposition of DW Tejpal Singh ha dated 15.05.197 been sanctioned litigation regard Tejpal Singh sin acknowledged th and 2013-2014 Gurdaspur prov Singh. Thus, es testimony of bot e Lower Appellate Court e learned lower appellate Cou ndants was based on the denial o by the appellants that they ha 1994 and had become owners by at Tejpal Singh had received ₹20 y, although no receipt or docum of Tejpal Singh was denied, and rupted possession of the property e Court noticed that the res of deceased Tejpal Singh and we e sale deed dated 15.05.1975. T W-2 Jarnail Singh, son of appell ad purchased the suit property 74 for ₹13,800/-, and that mutati d in the name of Tejpal Singh. ding the suit property had been co nce 1994, and that Tejpal Singh hat the land was shown in the Ja in the name of Tejpal Singh. ved the sale deed dated 15.05.1 ssential facts regarding owners th sides.

urt recorded that the case of of the ownership of Tejpal Singh ad been in possession of the y way of adverse possession. Th 0,000/- from the appellants as pr ment was produced in proof there d the appellants maintained that th y since 1994. spondents/plaintiffs are the le ere relying upon their ownership The appellate Court referred to lant Sahib Singh, who admitted t from Mohan Singh vide sale d ion No. 4102 dated 05.11.1997 h The witness also admitted that ontinuing between Sahib Singh had died on 05.08.2014. He furt amabandi of 2003-2004, 2008-20 Even PW-3 from the DC Off 1974 executed in favour of Tej ship stood established through

- h. It suit hey rice eof. hey egal p on that deed had ther fice,

23.

Tejpal Singh, th on an alleged p self-destructive. simultaneously deed.

24.

true owner and plaintiffs were o date or point o commence the ownership by a the true owner, any act of hostil

25.

parties. It recor against Tejpal S Sahib Singh had of Tejpal Singh had also been d unauthorized fro

26.

It w capacity in whi possession be e appellate Court observed that i he appellants had relied on a ple payment of ₹20,000/-, but both . A person who claims to ha assert ownership by adverse po e Court held that adverse posse therefore, raising such a plea a owners. It further observed that of time when their possession period of prescription. The p dverse possession must be host but no such evidence had been lity could not confer ownership. e appellate Court also noticed t rded that the appellants/defend Singh in 1994, which was decide d trespassed into the suit proper h, who was residing in Mumbai dismissed. This showed that the om the beginning. was further observed that the ich they entered into possessio said to be peaceful or uninter

in order to counter the ownership ea of adverse possession as wel h pleas were self-contradictory ave purchased a property can ssession in the absence of any s ession always operates against amounted to an admission that the appellants had not pleaded allegedly became hostile so as possession necessary to ripen i tile, open, and to the knowledge led. Mere long possession with the previous litigation between dants had earlier filed a civil ed in 1997, wherein it was held t rty taking advantage of the abse . The appeal against that judgm e possession of the appellants w appellants had not disclosed n of the property, nor could th rrupted when the parties were

- p of l as nnot sale s to into e of hout suit that ence ment was heir

continuous liti possession, open entirely lacking possession as ad

27.

barred by limita claims ownersh possession, wh disproportionate Court in Hemaj

(2009) 16 SCC (Civil) 166, as w another 2015(1 strictly proved.

28.

Rel and others 201 claims possessio but fails to prov law. Applying t being the legal possession from the property.

29.

In had rightly decr igation. Consequently, the e n, hostile, and exclusive posses g. The appellate Court held tha dverse or as having culminated in e Court also rejected the conte ation. It was held that no equi hip by denying the title of ano hich deprives an owner merel e. The Court referred to the d aji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai C 517, and Jhandu (dead) thro well as to Tej Narain and anot 1) CCC 478, to hold that the p liance was also placed on Gurtej 0(6) RCR (Civil) 772, wherein on on the basis of title and the de ve it, the plaintiff is entitled to the same principle, the appellat representatives of deceased Tej m the appellants, who had no law conclusion, the appellate Court reed the plaintiffs' suit for posse

essential ingredients of adve ssion for the statutory period, w at there was no basis to treat su n ownership. ention that the plaintiffs' suit w ity lies in favour of a person w other, and that the law of adve ly for inaction, is irrational decisions of the Hon'ble Supre Khengarbhai Harijan and oth ough L.Rs. v. Moli 1997(3) R ther v. Shanti Swaroop Bohre a lea of adverse possession must ej Singh and others v. Balbir Sin it was held that when the plain efendant sets up adverse possess possession through due process te Court held that the responde pal Singh, were entitled to reco wful right to remain in occupation t found that the learned trial Co ession and injunction. The findi

- erse were uch was who erse eme hers RCR t be ngh ntiff sion s of nts, over n of ourt

of the trial Cour decree under misappreciation the appeal filed trial Court was u

30.

Ag appellants have respondents No. Submissions of

31.

Lea below erred in their claim for p are contrary to l that Tejpal Sing therefore, the lim of the Limitatio suit was institut have been dismi

32.

It w and uninterrupt recognized in th earlier suit deci

28.10.1999, had of the property rt were affirmed in their entirety appeal did not suffer from n of evidence and therefore called by the defendants was dismisse upheld. grieved by the concurrent fin preferred the present appeal, w .1 to 4. f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant dismissing the suit of the respo possession. It was argued that the law and evidence on record. Th gh had not been in possession o mitation for filing the suit for po on Act, was twelve years from th ted on 28.04.2015, it was clearly issed on that ground alone. was submitted that the appellant ted possession of the suit prop he previous litigation between ded on 18.01.1997, and the app d categorically recorded findings and that no injunction could b

y. It was held that the judgment m any illegality, perversity, d for no interference. Consequen ed with costs, and the decree of ndings of the Courts below, which upon notice is contested lants ts contended that both the Cou ondents/plaintiffs and in decree e findings on the issue of limitat he respondents themselves admit of the suit property since 1994, ossession, as per Articles 64 and the date of dispossession. Since y barred by limitation, and ough ts have been in settled, continuo perty since 1994, which has b the parties. The trial Court, in pellate Court in the judgment da that Sahib Singh was in possess be granted against a true owner

- or ntly, d by urts eing tion tted d 65 ht to ous, een ated sion

favour of a tresp that the appellan was urged that apply the princip

33.

Cou to appreciate th continuous sinc satisfied. Relian 4), wherein the revenue records Marusi, while c contended that absence of paym highlighted that Sahib Singh sinc

34.

It w the judgment an manner against later set aside v Tejpal Singh co that was already brushed it aside ownership and p passer. These judgments, which nts were in settled possession, a the Courts below, despite ackno ple of limitation correctly. unsel for the appellants further a hat the possession of the appel ce 1994, and hence the ingred nce was placed on the earlier dec possession of the appellants w s showing Sahib Singh's name in column No.9 relating to payme such entries in the Jamabandi ment of rent, thereby establishin t the electricity connection for t ce 1993, which corroborated sett was next argued that the Courts nd decree dated 22.08.1994 obta Mohan Singh without impleadin vide decree dated 25.10.1999, w ould not claim ownership or pos y annulled. The Courts below ig e lightly, despite the same bein possession.

attained finality, clearly establish although held to be unauthorized owledging these findings, failed argued that the Courts below fai llants has been open, hostile, dients of adverse possession sto ree dated 25.10.1999 (Annexure was recognized, and on subsequ n the column of cultivation as G ent of rent was left blank. It w proved continuous possession ng adverse possession. It was a the premises stood in the name tled and independent possession below failed to give due weigh ained by Tejpal Singh in a collus ng Sahib Singh. This judgment w which had attained finality. Hen ssession on the strength of a dec gnored the effect of that finding ng directly relevant to the issue

- hed d. It d to iled ood e A-uent Gair was also e of . ht to sive was nce, cree

35.

It w plaintiffs were e Singh in 2014. when the allege arise after more being legal heir filed in 2015 wa

36.

Lea and 28.10.1999 but settled pos subsequent pos period of limita the appellants' year 2009.

37.

Ref at-will), as reco reported as Kan Another [1954 P persons in posse was argued that proof of paymen unauthorized po Krishan Kuma [2022(1)RCR (C was also submitted that the Cou entitled to file a fresh suit for p The cause of action, according d dispossession occurred, and h than two decades merely by virt rs of Tejpal Singh, could not re as time-barred. arned Counsel further emphasize (Ex. P14 and Ex. P15) clearly h ssession as Gair Marusi. Once session could not be treated a ation should have been reckoned possession ripened into owners ference was also made to the leg ognized in the Punjab Land Rev nwar A. Ahmed Khan and Ano PLR 468], where it was held tha ession as tenants-at-will of the o t entries of Gair Marusi in the nt of rent, could not be treated as ossession. Reliance was further ar and Others Vs. Lala M Civil) 307] and Ram Kishan an

urts below erred in holding that possession after the death of Tej g to the appellants, arose in 19 ence no fresh cause of action co tue of inheritance. The responde evive a barred claim, and their ed that the judgments of 18.01.19 held that Sahib Singh was in ille e these findings attained final as fresh trespass. Accordingly, d from 1994, and by efflux of tim ship by adverse possession by gal concept of Gair Marusi (tena venue Act, 1887 and the judgm other Vs. The Union of India a at revenue officers frequently rec owner, even when no rent is paid Jamabandi, in the absence of s indicative of tenancy but rather r placed on judgments reported Mathura Prasad Trust (Reg nd Others Vs. Jagdish and oth

- jpal ould nts, suit egal lity, me, ant-ment cord d. It any r of d in gd.)

[2018(2) PLR 1 rent payment de

38.

submitting that when the posses that the Courts b to dismiss the su

39.

Las of plaintiffs' lo concealed mate dispossessed in in possession sin The plaintiffs th facts, which dise

40.

On decrees of both dismissed as ba possession be re Submissions of

41.

Lea the appellants substance, as bo while decreeing themselves had 149], where it was held that G enote illegal possession and long e appellants also relied upon A the limitation for a suit based o ssion of the defendant becomes a below erred in not applying these uit as time-barred. stly, it was argued that the findin ocus standi and clean hands w erial facts and misrepresented 2015, whereas the record clear nce 1994 and had been litigating hus approached the Court with u entitled them to the equitable rel n these grounds, it was prayed h the Courts below be set asid arred by limitation and devoid o ecognized as adverse possession f learned counsel for responden arned counsel for the responden regarding ownership by way oth the Courts below have rightl g the suit of the plaintiffs. It w d earlier filed Civil Suit No.20

air Marusi entries unsupported -settled occupation. Article 65 of the Limitation A on title begins to run from the d adverse to the plaintiff. It was ur e provisions correctly and in fail ngs of the Courts below on the is were perverse. The plaintiffs h before the Court that they w rly showed that the appellants w g with Tejpal Singh since that tim unclean hands and suppressed v lief of possession and injunction. that the concurrent judgments de, the suit of the respondents of merit, and the appellants' sett perfected by long lapse of time. nt Nos. 1 to 4 nts submitted that the arguments of adverse possession have y appreciated the evidence and was pointed out that the appella 5 of 1994 before the Civil Ju

- d by Act, date ged ling ssue had were were me. vital . be tled s of law ants

(Junior Division wherein the only to the injunctio dismissed with Thereafter, Civi No.3048 of 200 possession was

42.

It w Tejpal Singh sto a consideration defendant himse 4102 dated 05.1 ownership has c Thus, there exis interest, wherea ownership on th

43.

as Gair Marusi placed on RSA decided on 20.0 and cannot ripen true owner. The as owner in the n), Batala, which was decided b y issue framed was whether the on prayed for. The onus was o costs on 18.01.1997, holding tha il Appeal No. 42 of 1997 was al 00 was filed by the same Sahib already tested and rejected, and t was further argued that in the ood clearly proved by the registe of ₹13,800 executed by Moha elf in his cross-examination. Th

11.1997 were duly sanctioned in consistently been reflected in Ja ts complete proof of title in favo as the defendants have failed t hem. e respondents contended that the i in the cultivation column of A No.1334 of 1990, Punjab W

08.2025 wherein it was held that n into ownership unless the poss e revenue entries (Ex. D-6 to Ex ownership column, and therefor

by Shri Amarjit Singh Katari, PC plaintiff (Sahib Singh) was entit on Sahib Singh, and the suit w at he was not entitled to injuncti lso dismissed, and the present R Singh. Hence, the plea of adve the same cannot be reopened. earlier litigation the ownership ered sale deed dated 15.05.1974 an Singh, as also admitted by he revenue record and mutation N n the name of Tejpal Singh, wh amabandis from 1998-99 onwar our of the plaintiffs' predecessor to prove any document conferr e defendants have been shown o the revenue record. Reliance w Waqf Board v. Hamid & Othe t such entries are at best permiss session is hostile and adverse to x. D-11) clearly show Tejpal Sin re, the plea of adverse possession

- CS, tled was ion. RSA erse p of for No. hose rds. -in-ring only was ers, sive ngh

without basis. M owner, cannot c

44.

Lea ingredients of a prescription, it claim of right fo Singh) was in p possession neve act was ever sh their possession possession is leg

45.

limitation, subm cannot be decid adverse possess Reliance was p Additional Dist possession of Sa uninterrupted. T have trespassed when he was res

46.

It w pleas, claiming and at the sa Mere long possession, without a onstitute adverse possession. arned Counsel argued that the adverse possession. For posses must be actual, continuous, ope or the statutory period. In the pr possession only after the death er ripened into ownership becau hown. The defendants also faile n allegedly became adverse. gally untenable. e respondents also countered mitting that limitation is a mixe ded without proof of possession sion itself is unproved, the que placed on Civil Appeal No. 90 trict Judge, who, in paragraph ahib Singh was unauthorized and The appellate Court had also no into the suit property taking ad siding in Mumbai. was further submitted that the d at one stage that Tejpal Singh so ame time asserting ownership

animus or denial of title of the t e defendants' plea lacks essen sion to mature into ownership en, hostile, exclusive, and unde resent case, defendant No. 1 (Sa of Tejpal Singh in 2014, and su use no open declaration or adve ed to specify any date from wh Hence, their claim of adve d the appellants' argument ed question of law and fact wh n being adverse. Since the plea estion of limitation does not ar 0 of 2018, decided by the learn h 16, discussed in detail that d could not be treated as peacefu oted that Sahib Singh was found dvantage of Tejpal Singh's abse defendants have taken inconsist old the property to them for ₹20,0 p by adverse possession. Su

- true ntial by er a ahib uch erse hich erse on hich a of rise. ned ul or d to nce tent

contradictory sta proof of any sale

47.

conduct of the a suppressing ma died in 2003) a passed in that except in due co plea that the dec record of the pro

48.

Lea never been chal 1994 or Civil S remains undispu not maintainab Paramjeet Kaur register of the sa 1011 dated 15.0

49.

It w inapplicable, as judgments relied open and hosti hostility nor den ands cannot be accepted in law. e or payment; the alleged oral tra e respondents also drew the C appellants, who tried to mislead terial facts and even impleadin as a party. It was also pointed o RSA only protected the appe ourse of law; it did not confer an ceased Tejpal Singh was not ser ocess server clearly shows otherw arned Counsel further emphasiz llenged in any of the previous Suit No. 383 of 1994, and thu uted. The appellants' attempt to r le. The sale deed was duly , Clerk from the DC Office, Gu ale deed, registered as Vasika No

05.1974. was argued that the case laws c the facts of those cases differ m d upon by the appellants concern le acts, whereas in the presen nial of ownership by the defenda

Moreover, there is no document ansaction is unsubstantiated. Court's attention to the mala f the Court in RSA 3048 of 2000 ng Mohan Singh (who had alre out that the order dated 02.09.20 llants from forcible dispossess ny ownership or tenancy rights. T rved in that RSA is baseless, as wise. zed that the sale deed of 1974 suits, namely Civil Suit No.552 us the ownership of Tejpal Sin reopen that settled issue is theref proved on record through PW urdaspur, who produced the origi o. 730, Bahi No. 1049, and Jild N cited by the appellants are entir materially from the present one. T n adverse possession established nt case, there is neither any op ants.

- tary fide 0 by ady sion has 2 of ngh fore W-4 inal No. rely d by

50.

been rightly dec possession of t ownership by w 2018 was also d of the concurren of law, the pre deserves dismis Findings of this

51.

I h parties and gone present appeal is

52.

and possession the same parties 3048 of 2000 fil a suit for perma that RSA, the p trial Court and t his entry into t predecessor-in-i of 15.05.1974 a record and have e respondents finally submitted creed in favour of the plaintiffs the suit property and that the way of adverse possession. The s dismissed, affirming the finding nt findings of both Courts and t esent Regular Second Appeal f sal. s Court have considered the respective e through the record carefully. T s liable to be dismissed. e factual and documentary mate in respect of the suit land have s over many years. The earlier led by Sahib Singh against Tejpa anent injunction between these p laintiff, Sahib Singh was held n the appellate Court found that he the land was as a trespassor. T interest, Tejpal Singh had title by and that Sahib Singh's possess e a direct bearing on the present

that Civil Suit No. 312 of 2015 fs, holding that they are entitled defendants have failed to pr subsequent Civil Appeal No. 90 s of the trial Court. Hence, in v the lack of any substantial quest filed by Sahib Singh and anot contentions of the counsel for This Court is of the opinion that erial on record shows that the t e been repeatedly litigated betw Regular Second Appeal numbe al Singh, since deceased arose fr parties and was dealt with above not to be entitled to injunction. T e had no lawful possession and t Those concurrent findings that y reason of the registered sale d sion was unlawful are part of t Regular Second Appeal i.e. RS

-has d to ove 0 of iew tion ther title ween ered rom e. In that deed SA-

1371/2025, whi parties and the l

53.

Tw present dispute possession was, adverse finding were instituted. weakens any lat exclusive so as obtained in RSA in due course o protection did n right on the a adjudication. Th treated as evid defeating the reg

54.

Tur limitation and th depends entirely possession since their favour. If t in 1994, the app the plaintiffs' su on the material ich arises from a separate suit egal heirs of Tejpal Singh. wo points flow from that earlier d e. First, the earlier judgment at least at one stage, as a tresp s. Those findings are not erased An earlier judicial finding that ter plea by that party that his po s to mature into title by prescr A-3048/2000 on 02.09.2003, wh of law, was procedural and pro not and could not confer owne appellant. It simply restrained herefore the limited protection ence that the appellant had ac gistered title of Tejpal Singh. rning to the principal points arg he claim of adverse possession. y on the contention that they ha e 1994 and that, by efflux of tim the date of commencement of a pellants allege, then a suit filed uit should have been dismissed. before this Court. The record s

for possession between the sa decision which materially affect t establishes that Sahib Sing assor and was the subject of ear d simply because later proceedi t a party is in unlawful possess ossession was peaceful, hostile ription. Second, the interim or hich restrained dispossession exc otective in character. That inte ership, tenancy or any prescript summary dispossession pend afforded by that order cannot cquired a legally cognisable ri gued in this appeal, the question The appellants' case on limitat ave been in continuous and hos me, title by prescription accrued adverse possession were to be fix in 2015 would be time-barred a That contention cannot be accep shows that the parties have been

- ame gh's rlier ings sion rder cept rim tive ding t be ight n of tion stile d in xed pted

active litigation expressly record title and was tr length of occup notorious, hostil true owner for th evidence and fou clear and cogen hostility or mad possession was continuous and be treated as p matrix, the mer point cannot res

55.

Eve Gair Marusi is possession. The material to show revenue entry i appellants have of rent, nor hav made as an ack owner's title. A hostility and den n about the same land since d that the appellants' entry was reated as unlawful. Adverse po pation. It requires possession w le and exclusive and with an ani he statutory period. The Courts b und those essential elements to b nt evidence that the appellants e any open declaration which pu adverse in the legal sense. W where prior Courts have found tr proof of hostile possession that re passage of time does not ava scue their case. en if the single entry in the reven considered, that entry by itself e record contains only one such w payment of rent or the circu into proof of tenancy or into not produced any receipt or oth ve they produced cogent eviden knowledgment of tenant-at-will A single revenue entry, in absen nial of title, is not enough to di

the 1990. The earlier judgme not in conformity with the owne ossession requires more than m which is actual, continuous, op imus to hold against the title of below have carefully considered be missing. In particular, there is ever performed any overt act ut the true owner on notice that th Where litigation between parties respass, long presence alone can t ripens into title. On that fact ail the appellants and the limitat nue record showing Sahib Singh f is insufficient to establish adve h entry and there is no support umstances which would conver proof of hostile possession. T her documentary proof of paym nce that the Gair Marusi entry w l status in a manner defeating nce of corroborative facts show isplace the registered sale deed

- ents er's mere pen, s no t of heir s is nnot tual tion h as erse ting rt a ment was

long standing en on record does n possession was h

56.

The claimed or document. The elsewhere relyin for awarding ti Court accepted defence admitte and registration sanctioned in h record and the plaintiffs and ag

57.

Fin plaintiffs conten and that their c possession dates these competing deed of the year adverse possess collapses as lim owner, and here at any identifiab ntries in the owner column in th not establish that Sahib Singh w hostile in the sense required by l e appellants' other factual cont ral sale/ payment of ₹20,000 w appellants' pleas were inconsist ng on adverse possession and inc tle. The trial Court noted thos that view. The material also sh ed material aspects of the plain of the 1974 sale deed in favou his name. Those admissions, to judgments in the earlier suits gainst the appellants' plea of own nally, the timing of the present s nd that they were dispossessed o ause of action crystallised then s back to 1994. The Courts belo g versions and have found that th r 1974 remains proved and that ion at any relevant date. Given th mitation runs from the date when e the defendants have not shown ble date with the requisite anim

e Jamabandi. In short, the evide was ever a paying tenant or that law. tentions are likewise unsupport as never proved by any receipt tent, at times alleging purchase consistent pleas cannot be the ba se contradictions and the appell hows that witnesses called for ntiffs' case, including the existe ur of Tejpal Singh and the mutat ogether with the certified reven s, weigh heavily in favour of nership by prescription. suit must be placed in context. T only after the death of Tejpal Sin n. The appellants contend that th ow have examined the evidence he plaintiffs' title by way of the s the defendants have failed to pr hat finding, the limitation argum possession becomes adverse to n that their possession was adve mus and open hostility. The ear

- nce his ted. t or asis late ence tion nue ngh heir e on sale ove ment erse

finding that Sah with the appella the owner from

58.

For Singh, the sanc ownership, the p the absence of inconsistency o adverse possess findings recorde and decree in Ci do not suffer fro Conclusion

59.

Acc and another is d are affirmed.

60.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh hib Singh was a trespasser in th ants' present claim that their pos 1994 onwards. r all these reasons, the proved ctioned mutation and entries in prior judicial findings that Sahib evidence of payment of rent or f the appellants' pleas, and the sion, this Court finds no reaso ed by the trial Court and the low ivil Suit No. 312 of 2015, as affi om any legal infirmity or pervers cordingly, the present RSA No. dismissed. The concurrent findin nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

he suit land is directly inconsist ssession was peaceful and hostile registered title in favour of Tej n revenue records supporting t b Singh's possession was unlaw r any other indicia of tenancy, e failure to prove the elements n to interfere with the concurr wer appellate Court. The judgm firmed by the lower appellate Co sity. 1371 of 2025 filed by Sahib Sin ngs and decrees of the Courts bel stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- tent e to jpal that wful, s of rent ment urt, ngh