The essential ingredients for adverse possession must be pleaded clearly, and long possession alone is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - I.As.11545/2020 (by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking judgment against defendants) & 8712/2021 (by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC)

1. This order will dispose of the application (I.A.11545/2020) filed by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admissions against the defendants. The application (I.A. 8712/2021) for filing additional documents shall also be disposed of by this order.

2. The facts of the case as setup in the plaint may be briefly stated for the sake of ready reference. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking recovery of possession, mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through them in respect of property being land measuring 2200 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No.47/25/1/2 (0- 2), 47/25/2/1 (1-18) and 54/1/2 (0-4) in Khata No. 281 situated in the revenue estate of village Hastsal, Delhi. The property is stated to be situated in the Pradhan Vali Gali and bounded by 20 feet high brick walls on all sides. It is stated to have a built up portion comprising of two halls, three rooms, two separate bathrooms, two separate kitchens, a temple and a garden and a covered parking space (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").

3. The plaintiff has stated that there are two entrances to the said property, being No.370 at the entrance from the Pradhan Vali Gali and No.371-A from the side of the MCD Primary School, village Hastsal. The property belonging to the defendants surrounds the suit property on the North, South and the East directions and by the Pradhan Wali Gali in the West direction. Of the two gates, one opens towards the western side and the other towards the northern side.

4. The defendants are the relatives of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs state that the suit property was originally owned by late Sudhir Kumar Tyagi, who expired on 24th May, 2018. It is claimed that the suit property had come into the share of Sudhir Kumar Tyagi on the basis of a partition which took place vide a decree dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by the Revenue Assistant, Delhi in a suit being preferred under Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the partition has also been entered in the revenue records. It is stated that though initially at the time of partitioning of the ancestral property, the relationship of Sudhir Kumar Tyagi and the defendant No.1 had turned sour but with the passage of time, the relations had become stable so much so that in the year 2013, at the time of the wedding of the plaintiff No.1, both families had started visiting each other. Thus, when in the year 2016, the defendants requested Sudhir Kumar Tyagi to allow them to open a gym in the hall of the suit property, he agreed. The defendants at times have paid some amount around Rs.20,000/- or Rs.25,000/- but there was no regular payment. Thus, the defendants are in possession of the suit property only as the licensee of late Sudhir Kumar Tyagi and now the plaintiffs.

5. The further case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs had asked the defendants to vacate the suit property but the defendants refused to vacate the same. The plaintiffs have also claimed that despite the occupation of the suit property by defendants, Sudhir Kumar Tyagi had retained in his possession an office/room, latrine, kitchen and a storage room near the northern side of the suit property towards the MCD Primary School which he used for his personal purposes and which was placed under his lock and key and contained his old business records. The covered parking area was also being used by the plaintiffs and their visitors. However, by the end of 2017, the relationship again deteriorated. Thereafter, Sudhir Kumar Tyagi expired on 24th May, 2018. It was averred that the plaintiffs taking hold of the situation, in 2019 made a joint request to the defendants to vacate the s