Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual findings in second appeal absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 08.07.2021 as passed by the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. in C.A. No. 08/2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016, as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.2, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. have been affirmed whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for possession of the suit land was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Rohru, on 18.11.2011 for possession of the suit land. It was averred in the plaint that late Jamku, son of Late Jamalu, was the recorded owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 1042, area measuring 2-06 along with other pieces of land as the same was purchased by the deceased from one late Liaqui Ram, resident of Village Kindari. After the death of late Sh. Jamku, necessary mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of the plaintiff along with other co-sharers and the same is reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05.

3. It has been averred in the plaint that after purchase of the suit land, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff became exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Earlier, suit land was shown as Khasra No. 1042, during settlement operation, Khasra Nos. 1463, 1464 and 1465 have also been shown to be part of the original Khasra number 1042. It has been further averred that till his death, i.e. during the month of April, 2010, Jamku remained owner in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries shown by the settlement staff is wrong and contrary to the spot. After the death of Jamku, the defendants at the back of the plaintiff forcibly and un-authorizedly took possession of the suit land on the basis of the wrong revenue entries. When wrong entries were detected, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, Balku, was requested to hand over the possession, he refused to do so. Therefore, under such circumstances, suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff seeking decree for vacant possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1463, 1464 and 1465 measuring 00-07-27 hectares comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 192/452, situated in Chak Jharkot, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, H.P. with further prayer that defendants be directed to demolish temporary structure as raised over the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, etc. On merits, it was averred that the suit land never remained in possession of Liaqui Ram. In the year 1954, defendants’ grandfather, namely, Sh. Nesru had taken Rs.40/- from Liaqui Ram for marriage of Jamku. Thereafter, in the year 1958, the amount was refunded to Liaqui Ram from joint fund of the family as the original defendant and father of the plaintiff wer