The plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the claim of ownership, and an agreement to sell must comply with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act to confer title or transfer interest in immovable property.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellants are the defendants, who being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal.

The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction on land measuring 57-60 sqaure meter, in Khata No. 200, Khatauni No. 282, Khasra no. 723, as detailed in the jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, in Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., till the property is partitioned and for mandatory injunction for removal of structure, if raised, over the suit property. The plaintiff has alleged that in family partition dated 29.03.1987 between three brothers, the shop in dispute had fallen to his share and that he was recovering the rent from the tenant.

3. The defendants contested the suit and set up the plea that shop has been demolished by defendant No. 1 after the relinquishment of the tenancy rights in his favour and the delivery of physical possession of the property by him on payment of Rs. 1.10 lac. The family settlement dated 29.03.1987 was admitted, however, it was submitted that the father of the plaintiff Joginder Prasad has left his share and transferred his right of ownership to defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 1 lac through agreement dated 25.12.1992 and ever since that time, the plaintiff and other successors of Joginder Prasad had been left with no right in the suit property and defendant No. 1 was in exclusive ownership and possession of the shop, pursuant to the agreement dated 25.12.1992 in part performance of the same. It was also averred that after the agreement dated 29.03.1987, other heirs of Ramesh Chand, who had settled in Ghumarwin, had also given up their rights in the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1 vide agreement, dated 26.10.2003. It was also averred that the shop being in a dilapidated condition had collapsed due to the construction work which was carried out by the adjoining owner and defendant No. 3 had surrendered the possession of the suit property on receipt of Rs. 1.10 lac and executed an agreement dated 24.01.2005 and had also sworn affidavit in this behalf and after that only defendant-appellant had demolished the shop and started construction. It was also averred that not only Joginder Prasad father of the plaintiff had executed agreement to sell dated 25.12.1992, but had also transferred his ownership rights in favour of defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 1 lac, however due to the non-availability of the father of the plaintiff, the sale deed could not be registered. In alternative, the plea of adverse possession has also been set up by the appellants.

4. As regards, defendant No. 3, the suit was contested by filing separate written statement, wherein he had taken the plea of estoppel, collusiveness and limitation.

5. The learned trial Court after framing of issues, proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and tendered family settlement Ext. PW-1/B and the money order receipts. On the other hand, the defendants-appellants examined three witnesses and placed on record the agreement dated 25.12.1992 Ext. DW-3/A and agreement dated 24.01.2005, Ext. DY. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit and the defendants were restrained from raising any sort of construction or changing the nature of the suit land. The document Ext. DW-3/A was held not to be in genuine and valid document. The defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court and the same also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 1st April, 2017, constraining them to file the instant appeal.

6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shubhum So