The main legal point established in the judgment is that if a person is found to be a tenant of the property, they cannot claim title by adverse possession, and the decision of the competent revenue authority regarding possession as a tenant cannot be challenged in a subsequent civil suit.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Both these Regular Second Appeals are filed by the defendants appellants challenging the judgement and decree passed by First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Faridkot dated 16.2.1990 whereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration declaring the plaintiffs owner of the suit land by adverse possession and further dismissing the counter claim of the defendants/appellants herein seeking possession from the plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration before the trial Court saying the plaintiffs have matured their title on the basis of adverse possession against the defendants. In a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs, defendants/appellants herein, preferred their counter claim seeking relief of possession from the plaintiffs claiming themselves (defendants) as owner of the property in dispute.

3. The trial Court vide judgement dated 3.1.1987 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs claiming title on the basis of adverse possession while counter claim of the defendants - appellants herein was decreed and granted decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs pertaining to the suit property.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court dated 31.1.1987, defendants preferred two appeals before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court vide impugned judgement and decree dated 16.2.1990 allowed the appeals thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and dismissing the counter claim of the defendants.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement passed by the First Appellate Court, defendants have preferred these two appeals, one against the dismissal of the counter claim and the other decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs declaring them owner of the property by way of adverse possession.

6. Main contention of the plaintiffs is that Buggar Singh son of Mangal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, remained in possession of the land in dispute for 40 years and did not pay any rent or batai to the owner of the land and his possession over the land was open, hostile, peaceful and uninterrupted, hence, Buggar Singh had become the owner of the property by way of adverse possession; Buggar Singh continued in possession till 24.9.1980 on which date he expired. Thereafter, plaintiffs stepped into his shoes and they came into possession of the land in dispute. The possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 18 was open, hostile and to the knowledge of the contesting defendants No.l to 17. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 18 have thus become owner of the land in dispute by adverse possession. Buggar Singh before his death executed a Will dated 8.9.1978 and on the basis of the aforesaid Will, plaintiffs and defendant No. 18 are the owners of the property in dispute and inherited all the rights of Buggar Singh and also matured their title by way of adverse possession. Further case of the plaintiffs is that defendants No.l to 4 claimed that they have purchased the suit land from defendants No.5 to 17 and they are entitled to take possession of the land forcibly while they are neither owner nor could have purchased the land in dispute when plaintiffs have matured their right by way of adverse possession.

7. Defendants No.l to 14 filed joint written statement denying the possession of Buggar Singh for the last 40 years. Chaggar Singh and others as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the written statement, were the owner in possession of the suit land and they have executed sale deed dated 17.10.1984 in favour of the answering defendants. Land in question was under mortgage and the mortgagees inducted Buggar Singh as tenant, hence possession of Buggar Singh has remained permissive; he had never been in adverse possession; while redeeming the mortgage, Buggar Singh was found to be the tenant on behalf of the mortgagee, hence there is no question of maturing of title by adverse possession.

8.