The court upheld the principle of adverse possession but also recognized the joint ownership rights of the plaintiffs, granting them joint possession of the property.

Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment, dated 4th July, 1996, of learned Additional District Judge, whereby accepting the appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs, judgment and decree, dated 20th August, 1990, of the trial Court, i.e. the Court of Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib, has been reversed and the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. Facts that need to be noticed for the disposal of appeal are as follows. Plaintiffs and their brother Amar Singh, (now deceased and represented by his son Ram Chand proforma respondent herein) owned the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 549, 550 and 628/554, situate in Mouza Dewra, jointly. However, Amar Singh, the third brother of the plaintiffs, was in exclusive possession of the said land. He allegedly handed over the possession of the land to respondent-defendant Beli Ram, in the year 1972, and on being asked by the plaintiffs (his two brothers), as to how Beli Ram came into possession of the suit land, he told them that he had created mortgage for a sum of Rs.400/- in favour of Beli Ram. Plaintiffs then filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. Beli Ram contested that suit and took the plea that he had purchased the land for Rs.2000/- from Amar Singh. Trial Court concluded that plaintiffs’ plea of mortgage was not proved. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. However, it was observed that plaintiffs could file a suit for possession. Appeal was filed against that decree of trial Court, which was dismissed.

3. After the dismissal of the appeal, appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for possession of the suit property, claiming that they were joint owners of the suit land with Amar Singh. Besides respondent Beli Ram, Amar Singh was also impleaded as a defendant. Only Beli Ram contested the suit. He took the plea of adverse possession, claiming that he had been in possession of the suit land for the last 16-17 years, when the possession was delivered to him, pursuant to the alleged sale for a consideration of Rs.2000/-.

4. Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were owners and entitled to possession of the suit land. Defendant’s plea that suit land had been sold to him by Amar Singh did not find favour with the trial Court. Consequently, the suit was decreed and a decree for possession of the suit property was passed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants.

5. Defendant Beli Ram filed appeal in the Court of District Judge. That appeal has been accepted by the District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.7.1996. So, the appellants-plaintiffs have come in appeal to this court.

6. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether a person can claim adverse possession of land from the day he is put in possession of the same in consequence of an agreement of sale where only a part of the consideration is paid in the first instance?

If the answer to first question is in the negative, from which day the adverse possession can be said to have commenced in the facts and circumstance of the present case?

Whether the respondent is entitled to the protection of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the fact that appellants 1 and 2 were never a party to the alleged agreement of sale although they were owners of the suit land alongwith Amar Singh who is alleged to have entered into the oral agreement of sale and received only a part of the sale consideration?

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. In the present case, defendant’s plea is that he had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2000/- to Amar Singh, before he was put in possession of the suit land. Respondent Beli Ram appeared as DW-3 and testified that he had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2000/-. Amar Singh did not enter the witness box to controvert the testimony of respondent Beli Ram. Therefore, it cannot be said