The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to possession and adverse possession claims under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Limitation Act, 1963.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree for vacant possession of the suit land being delivered to him by the defendants, stood, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon by both the learned Courts, below hence decreed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the defendants as the suit land comprised in Khata No.52, Khatuani No. 95, Khasra Nos. 61, 62, 63 and 64, measuring 0-02-44 hectares, situated in Mohal Bankhandi, Mauja Tatahan Kalan, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85, the plaintiff claimed to have succeeded the suit land through Sant Ram, the previous owner vide registered Will and has further pleaded and claimed that the possession of defendant No.1 over the suit land without any status. The plaintiff further pleaded that after the death of previous owner of the suit land one Sant Ram, his daughter Leela Devi filed a Civil Suit No.74 of 1986 by impleading present defendant No.1 Raj Kumar as one of the defendants along with the present plaintiff as defendant in the previous suit and the present defendant No.1 colluded with Smt. Leela Devi in the previous suit and as a result thereof the claim against Raj Kumar was withdrawn on 30.01.1991 in a suit titled as Leela Devi vs. Parvati, Civil Suit No.74/86 before Sub Judge, Dehra. The plaintiff further pleaded that Smt. Raj Kumari in the previous suit had filed written statement claiming to have built up house along with incomplete construction of three shops over the suit land on 12.05.1987 and the order of status quo over the land in dispute was passed on seeking such relief by the plaintiff against the present defendant No.1 and thereafter the present plaintiff had moved an application under Order 39,Rule 2-A of the CPC along with Order 39, Rule 7 of the CPC for appointment of commission in which the present defendant was found raising construction over the land in dispute. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendants have no right or interest over the suit land and thereby have sought possession of the suit land.

3. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and have filed written statement, wherein, they have taken objections qua locus standi, limitation, valuation, jurisdiction and estoppel and the suit being stayed in view of the Civil Suit No.6/86. On merits, the defendants admitted the ownership of Sant Ram over the suit land, however, the defendants have denied the succession to the estate of Sant Ram by the plaintiff as the defendants have pleaded and claimed the Will dated 17.8.1984, executed by Sant Ram in favour of Leela Devi and Parvati Devi by denying the executing of any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The Will executed by Sant Ram in favour of the plaintiff stated to be under challenge in Civil Suit No. 6/86. The defendants have admitted the previous suit including defendant No.1 as party along with the plaintiff. However, the collusion as alleged by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the relief against defendant Raj Kumar has been denied, though it has been admitted that the previous suit was withdrawn against defendant Raj Kumari by Leela Devi. The defendants claimed titled to the suit land by way of adverse possession since April, 1946 as the suit land claimed to be given by Sant Ram to defendant No.1 for her residence and maintenance and thereafter, the husband of defendant No.1 built up the construction over the suit land including the house and shops. The defendants have pleaded and claimed in their written statement that Sant Ram was deserted by his wife about 44-45 years back and since then on persuasion of Sant Ram, defendant No.1 being his real sister started residing along with his husband with him. Thereafter Sant Ram had relinquished his ownership over the suit land in April, 1946 in favour of defendant No.1 and thereby defendant No.1 has claimed herself to be in continuous, peaceful, h