The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for tangible evidence to prove oral sale and adverse possession, and the relevance of revenue records in determining ownership.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 12-N/13 of 2003.

2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for the sake of convenience) have filed a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience). The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the suit land was owned and possessed by them since 26.01.1966, on which date the plaintiff No. 1, Shri Zalam Singh and his late brother Chananu paid Rs.2500/- as sale consideration to the predecessors-in-interest of defendants, namely, Mani Ram and Moti Ram, who delivered possession as owners to plaintiff No. 1 and his late brother Chanandu. They were coming in continuous possession of the same. They have been recorded in the column of cultivation as "davedar mustriyan" and the names of the defendants in the column of ownership are illegal and contrary to the facts. They have also set up the plea of adverse possession. According to them, they have spent a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards development on the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. They have denied that the suit land was sold to plaintiff No. 1 or his deceased brother Chananu by the predecessors of the defendants. According to them, Mani Ram and Nandru were the predecessors of defendants and they were owners of the suit land and they have never sold the suit land to plaintiff No. 1 or his brother on 26.01.1966. It is denied that the possession of the suit land was delivered to plaintiff No. 1 and his brother by the predecessors of the defendants. It is stated that Mani Ram and Nandru were in possession of the suit land as owners and in the year 1960, they gave the suit land to one Mina, son of Shri Rupu as licencee for cultivation with the condition that whenever they needed the suit land, said Mina would hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to them and Nandru before creating the licence had already mortgaged the suit land to the extent of his half share for a consideration of Rs.200/- in favour of the State of H.P., which was redeemed in the year 1965. It is further averred that Mina, the licensee was an old man and could not cultivate land properly. Therefore, he himself gave up the possession of the suit land in favour of Mani Ram in the year 1966 and thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 and his brother approached the defendants and their father Mani Ram for taking the suit land for cultivation as licencee with the condition to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to them as and when they will demand. Thereafter, the defendants and Mani Ram in June, 1966 gave the suit land on the above conditions to plaintiff No. 1 and his brother as licencee. The revenue entries showing the plaintiff No. 1 and his brother as claimant/purchaser regarding the suit land were stated to be incorrect. It is denied that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

4. The defendants have also filed a Counter Claim seeking decree of possession of the suit land on the basis of the title. According to them, they were in possession of the suit land and on the request of plaintiff No. 1 and his brother, the land was given for cultivation as licencee. The defendants have asked the plaintiffs to handover the possession in September, 1998, but they refused. Thereafter, a notice was issued and their tenancy was terminated.

5. The plaintiffs have also filed written statement to the Counter Claim filed by the defendants, stating therein that the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the suit land since 26.01.1966 on account of oral sale and the sale price of Rs.2500/- paid by the plaintiff Zalam Singh and his brother Chananu to Moti Ram and M