Objections to the admissibility of evidence should be raised when the evidence is tendered and cannot be raised subsequently. The plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars and cannot be raised in appeal only on the basis of prolonged possession.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This second appeal impugns the judgment dated 12.05.2023 passed by the ADJ-03, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`First Appellate Court') in RCA DJ No. 83/2017, upholding the judgment dated 19.08.2017 passed by the ACJ-cum-ARC, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in New Suit No. 59521/2016, whereby the Trial Court granted the decree of possession and mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with respect to the suit property i.e. property No. E-515, Mangolpuri, Delhi (`suit property').

1.1. The Appellants herein are defendants and Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the civil suit. The civil suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of possession and permanent and mandatory injunction. The Appellants are married to each other. The Appellant No. 1 and Respondent are brothers.

2. The Trial Court in its judgment dated 19.08.2017 has returned a finding that Respondent has proved his ownership over the suit property and is, therefore, entitled to the relief of possession against the defendants. The First Appellate Court as well has, after appraising the evidence, concluded that the initial owner of the suit property was Smt. Munni Devi and the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff i.e., Respondent herein, from Smt. Munni Devi in the year 1982. The First Appellate Court also concluded that the Respondent has been able to prove his proper title over the suit property.

Arguments of the counsel for the Appellants

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that the Courts below have relied upon the General Power of Attorney (`GPA'), Agreement to Sell and affidavit, all dated 02.12.1982, filed by the Respondent to show his title to the suit property.

3.1. He states that the said documents are forged and fabricated and the Appellants herein do not admit to the genuineness of the said document.

3.2. He states that no objection with respect to the mode of proof was raised when the said documents were tendered in evidence by the Respondent. He states that however, the absence of such an objection and the mere exhibition of the said document cannot dispense with the obligation of the Respondent to prove the said documents.

3.3. He states that there was no evidence on record for the Courts below to conclude that the said documents have been proved in accordance with law. He states that the originals of the said documents were not produced before the Trial Court, no witnesses of the said documents were examined and the signatures of the vendor were not identified in the manner prescribed in law. He relies upon the suggestion given to the Respondent i.e., PW-1, during the cross-examination to contend that the documents are forged and fabricated.

3.4. He states that the Respondent in the plaint had alleged that the Appellants herein were inducted as licensees in the year 2008. He states that, however, a perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 shows that plea of the Respondent is false.

3.5. He states that the Respondent in the cross-examination has admitted that the Appellants herein have been in uninterrupted and continuous possession of the suit property for at least twenty-four (24) years. He states that it is admitted that the Appellants herein constructed a portion of the first floor with their own funds. He states that the Appellants reasonably believe that the suit property was purchased by the father of the Appellant No. 1 and Respondent and is a joint family property.

3.6. He states that the Appellants are not aware as to who was the recorded owner of the suit property. He states that on account of continuous and uninterrupted possession of the Appellants, they have become owners by adverse possession. He states that even in the absence of a specific pleading on adverse possession by the Appellant, the Courts below should have considered the said plea. In this regard he relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Naz