JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether both the Courts below are justified in granting the decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. Suit land bearing Khasra No. 381 area 1.76 acres was originally owned by the defendant Ramdulare Singh. Original plaintiff - Jhaduram initially filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction but subsequently, also sought for the relief of correction of sale deed (Ex. P/13) stating inter alia that he purchased the suit land from the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 31/03/1977 (Ex. P/13) on payment of cash consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and thereby, he came into possession of the said suit land which he has been cultivating ever since and has also been paying property tax and water tax, however, on 17/06/1991, Jhaduram requested one Teejram to cultivate the suit land, but Teejram was stopped by Golan Singh and Jai Singh and subsequently, plaintiff inquired from the patwari, then only, he came to know that instead of Khasra No. 381 area 1.76 acres, defendant has mentioned the land bearing Khasra No. 967/2 area 1.52 acres and Khasra No. 1010 area 0.40 decimal in the sale deed dated 31/03/1977 (Ex. P/13) which he has executed in plaintiff's favour and when he inquired, he also found out that Khasra No. 967/2 area 1.52 acres and Khasra No. 1010 area 0.40 decimal is in possession of one Foolsai. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff requested the defendant for correction of the sale deed (Ex. P/13), but the defendant denied stating that he has alienated the land mentioned in the sale deed itself in favour of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that original plaintiff - Jhaduram has been in possession of the suit land since 1977 i.e. for 15 years and after his death, his son - Nawal Singh i.e. the present plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land, as such, he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, therefore, he is entitled for decree for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction and additional relief of correction of sale deed (Ex. P/13) as claimed by him.

3. Defendant filed his written statement and set up a plea that he has, in fact, sold the land bearing Khasra No. 967/2 area 1.52 acres and Khasra No. 1010 area 0.40 decimal to the plaintiff and not sold Khasra No. 381 area 1.76 acres as claimed by him.

4. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that defendant showed the suit land bearing Khasra No. 381 area 1.76 acres to the plaintiff and obtained cash consideration of Rs. 2,000/-, but thereafter, executed the sale deed (Ex. P/13) after mentioning Khasra No. 967/2 area 1.52 acres and Khasra No. 1010 area 0.40 decimal in favour of the plaintiff and further recorded a finding that plaintiff has been in continuous, long, undisturbed and hostile possession of the suit land (Khasra No. 381 area 1.76 acres) and therefore, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and accordingly, vide its judgment and decree dated 16/12/2004, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in his favour.

5. On appeal being preferred by the defendant, learned first appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 31/03/2006, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court against which this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/defendant in which substantial question of law has been framed and set out in the openi