The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove adverse possession, the claimant must demonstrate open, continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted, and hostile possession, and the validity of sale deeds and Jamabandi entries can influence the outcome of property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2015 rendered by the District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 33/2014.

2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants' for convenience sake). According to the averments contained in the plaint, land comprised in Khewat No. 456, Khatauni No. 527, Khasra No. 1151 measuring 00-09-07 bighas situated in Muhal Nagchalla Hadbast No. 219, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. was shown in the ownership and possession of late Sh. Durga. Out of the suit land, Khasra No. 1151/1 measuring 00-05-00 bighas was shown to be alienated in favour of defendant No. 7. Previously, Khasra number of suit land was 1270 and was recorded in the joint ownership of Sh. Gurdayal and Smt. Dassi etc. and was in possession of Mithnu, father of the plaintiff. The possession of Mithnu was recorded in the revenue record as "Bila Lagaan Ba Wazah Shinazori". Smt. Dassi, one of the co-owners, out of her th share in the joint land measuring 5-01-19 bighas, sold land measuring 00-09-07 bighas to Durga, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6, vide registered sale deed dated 20.4.1977. She was not competent to alienate or transfer the suit land in favour of Durga, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6. The mutation was attested in favour of Durga on 22.4.1993. An appeal was preferred against the mutation before the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 8.1.2007. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 23.8.2010. According to the plaintiff, Mithnu was encroacher of the suit land since 1.1.1950 and has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession since his possession was open, continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile to the knowledge of owners.

3. Suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 by filing separate written statement. According to them, the entries in the Jamabandi showing Mithnu as "Bila Lagaan Ba Wazah Shinazori" are wrong, incorrect and illegal. Smt. Dassi sold her th share in favour of Sh. Durga vide registered sale deed. The possession was handed over to Durga. It is denied that Mithnu was in possession as encroacher over the suit land since 1.1.1950.

4. Defendant No. 7 has filed separate written statement. According to him, he has purchased land measuring 00-05-00 bighas in Khasra No. 1151/1 vide registered sale deed dated 17.8.2009 after verifying the revenue record.

5. The plaintiff filed two separate replications. Issues were framed by the trial court. The trial court dismissed the suit on 12.8.2014. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mandi against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2014. He dismissed the same on 13.7.2015. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence. He has also submitted that defendant No.7 was not the bona fide purchaser of the suit land.

7. Mr. G.R. Palsra has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of both the courts below.

9. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence.

10. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has placed on record copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-1/B, copy of Missal Haquiat Istemal Ex.PW-1/C, copies of Jamabandi Ex.PW- 1/D, Ex.PW-1/E and Ex.PW-1/F. He has al