The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires open and hostile assertion of ownership, and mere long possession is insufficient to sustain a claim. Additionally, the importance of pleadings and documents in establishing title and possession in property disputes was emphasized.

ORDER

EX.APPL.(OS) 390/2022 (Objection)

1. By means of the instant order, the Court proceeds to decide the instant objections which have been preferred purporting to be referable to Rules 90 and 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Code].

2. The present execution proceedings have been instituted in respect of a final decree of partition dated 05 November 2019. Undisputedly, the aforesaid judgement and decree has attained finality since parties to the aforesaid proceedings have neither questioned nor assailed the aforesaid decree.

3. As per the disclosures made in the objections, it is the case of the Objector that the property bearing number R-496, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi [suit property] was originally applied for being allotted in the name of late Shri Ram Bheja Mal as a displaced person in lieu of properties left behind by him and his family members in Pakistan after partition. It is the case of the Objector that the application itself was made by the late Shri Ram Bheja Mal for the benefit of himself as well as his family members. The objections further disclose that the late Shri Ram Bheja Mal expired prior to the allotment of the said property in his name. He is stated to be survived by three sons namely late Shri Prakash Chandra Khetarpal, late Shri Jagdish Chander Paul and late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul. The three surviving sons, it is asserted, jointly contributed funds to acquire the said Rajinder Nagar property. It may be noted at this stage itself that the Objectors are the son and daughter of the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul. However and undisputedly, the perpetual lease deed in respect of the said property came to be executed and made in favour of the Late Shri Jagdish Chander Paul.

4. The Objectors further aver that after allotment, money was contributed by all three brothers for the purposes of construction of the property which stands in place over the allotted plot. It is further averred that the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul was in joint possession with the other two brothers, namely, the late Shri Prakash Chander Khetarpal and late Shri Jagdish Chander Paul.

5. It is further averred that the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul who was serving as an officer in the Ministry of External Affairs of the Union Government used to be posted out of India. However, according to the Objectors, he always retained possession of the first floor of the suit property. It is also asserted that the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul right from the time when the property was originally constructed in 1962 held himself out to be the exclusive owner of the first floor of the suit property. It is further disclosed that upon retiring from service on 30 November 1981, the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul along with his wife, the late Smt. Sudharshan Paul and the Objectors shifted into the first floor of the suit property on 05 October 1981 and continued to occupy the same without interruption and the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul always held himself out to be its exclusive owner. According to the Objectors, the possession of the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul was actual, visible, exclusive and hostile and continued as such for more than twelve years from 05 October 1981. It is on the aforesaid basis that the Objectors assert that late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul obtained rights of ownership by virtue of adverse possession.

6. The Objectors have placed on the record, electricity bills, water bills, copies of the passports issued in favor of the late Shri Ramesh Chander Paul, his wife as well as that of the Objectors here on the basis of which it was contended that all the aforesaid documentation would establish that they were not only in continuous and exclusive possession of the first floor of the suit property, they are entitled in law to be recognised as having obtained rights of ownership by virtue of adverse possession. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Objectors contend that they are entitled to the release of