The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for peaceful, open, and continuous possession to establish adverse possession.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The defendant is the appellant before this Court, who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No.65-XIII/2013 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.(III), Una, in Civil Suit No.176 of 2004 and Counter Claim No.149 of 2006.

2. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) filed a suit for possession through ejectment of shop measured and bounded as under:-

East 3.00 Metre Land of Plaintiff West 3.00 Metre PWD road Una to Gagret North 4.00 Metre Land of plaintiff South 4.00 Metre Village Gohar The aforesaid shop was marked with letters ABCD shown red in colour in the site plan, bearing Khasra No.2996, Khewat No.305 min, Khatauni No.486, situate in Upmohal Pandoga Nichala, Mohal Pandoga, Tehsil and District Una and for recovery of Rs.8,500/- ( arrears of rent Rs.450/- per month w.e.f. May, 2003 to October, 2004 along with interest). It was averred that the land measuring 0-00-12 Sq. metres bearing Khewat No. 305 min, Khatauni No. 486 min, Khasra No.2996 was owned by the respondent along with Sadhu, son of Gonda and other co-sharers and the same was in exclusive hissedari possession of aforesaid Sadhu, who constructed a shop over the same and rented out to the defendant-appellant (hereinafter after referred to as appellant) on monthly rent of Rs.450/-and the tenancy was oral. It was further averred that said Sadhu Ram sold his land along with disputed shop to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-through a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2003 and the respondent was put in possession at that time and to this effect mutation No.474 was duly sanctioned in the record of right in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was also averred that the appellant did not pay the rent since May, 2003 inspite of repeated demands of the respondent and ultimately a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the appellant on 05.10.2004 thereby terminating the tenancy of the appellant on 31.10.2004 with a further demand of payment of arrears of rent. The appellant gave reply dated 14.10.2004 setting up title of adverse possession in himself, hence, this suit.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi suppression of material facts bad for joinder of necessary parties were taken. On merits, the appellant stated that the respondent was not entitled for the relief claimed as he had suppressed the real and material facts from the Court. It was averred that the appellant had constructed the disputed shop in May, 1985 by investing huge money in the presence of respondent, Sadhu and other co-sharers and denied their ownership. The respondent along with others are seeing the constructive possession and running of confectionery and tea shop of appellant since then and his possession over the disputed land is peaceful, continuous and hostile since May, 1985 and after passing of 12 years of the possession of appellant, the title of the disputed shop has been matured in favour of the appellant on May, 1997. It was further averred that after the maturity of the title in favour of the appellant, the respondent has no right, title and interest therein and as such he had no locus-standi to file the suit. As per the appellant, he had invested huge money in the construction of the shop and it was denied that Sadhu Ram constructed the shop and rented out to the appellant, as alleged. It was also averred that respondent never came in possession after sanction of mutation and wrong revenue record was prepared against the actual constructive possession of the appellant. The sale deed dated 20.05.2003 is alleged to be false and has no binding effect on the right, title and interest of the appellant as the same was executed after maturit