Possession alone does not confer property title; it must be open, peaceful, and adverse to true owners for claim of adverse possession to succeed.

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, dated 21.02.2013, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 31.05.2011, passed by learnedCivil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2006, was dismissed.

2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

(a) Respondent-Shri Todar, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants (appellants herein). The plaintiff averred that land comprised in Khata No. 27, Khatauni No. 27, bearing Khasra No. 347/134 (new), measuring 4-03-13 bighas, situated in Mauza Chhol, H.B. No. 22, IllaquaBaniur, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) was recorded in the ownership and possession of defendant No. 1-Sidhu Ram. As per the plaintiff, the revenue entries were wrong, illegal and one Smt. Sukri widow of Narangu, who was resident of village Tandi and Chhol, was previous owner of the suit land. Smt. Sukri sold land measuring 4-10-0 bigha out of the suit land to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.9000/- and to this effect writing of sale was executed by Smt. Sukri on 11.06.1985, in presence of witnesses, i.e., the then President, Gram Panchayat Nandi, Tehsil Chachiot. Smt. Sukri handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and last installment of balance sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to Smt. Sukri on 10.02.1986 in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the suit land remained in open, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff for more than twelve years and he has become owner of the same on the basis of the said sale.

(b) Smt. Sukri, behind the back of the plaintiff, wrongly and illegally bequeathed the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1, through alleged Will No. 46, dated 16.05.1995 and on 14.12.2004 Smt. Sukri died. Subsequently, defendant No. 1, secretly got mutation of inheritance attested in his name qua the suit land without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, wrongly and illegally, without any delivery of possession sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3, vide sale deed No. 135, dated 16.03.2006. The plaintiff further averred that the suit land was sold to him by Smt. Sukri and possession of the same also remained with him during the lifetime of Smt. Sukri, therefore, he became owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

(c) As per the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest over the suit land, as his name was incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of wrong and illegal Will. It was further contended that defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3 without any delivery of possession to them. The sale deed, whereby defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3, is wrong, illegal, null and void and the same does not confer any right, title and interest upon defendants No. 2 and 3 and it is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(d) The plaintiff also averred that during the third week of March, 2006, the defendants started threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of alleged Will and Sale deed and the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the alleged Will, Sale deed and revenue entries, which were appearing in the name of the defendants. As per the plaintiff, since the third week of March, 2006, t