The main legal point established is that for adverse possession to be claimed, the possession must be hostile or adverse to the owner, which was not the case in this situation.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The defendant has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. He has challenged the judgment and decree dated December 24, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1978 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ferozepur was allowed and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession was decreed.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land measuring 27 kanals 12 marlas. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that Harnam Kaur wife of Bagga Singh was the original owner of the suit land. Bagga Singh had three sons, namely, Parampal Singh, Gurmail Singh and Sukhminder Singh. Bagga Singh was earlier married to Mann Kaur. Mann Kaur gave birth to a son Mehar Singh. Defendant, Jarnail Singh, is son of Mehar Singh. Harnam Kaur executed a power of attorney on May 35, 1973 in favour of her grandson, Parampal Singh. On the basis of the said power of attorney, Parampal Singh sold 90 kanals 12 marlas of land including the land in dispute. The land in dispute was sold by Parampal Singh in favour of his two sons Bhupinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh and his two brothers Gurmai! Singh and Sukhminder Singh through a registered sale deed dated September 3, 1973 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the present plaintiffs claimed that they are the owners of the suit land. They also claimed that Harnam Kaur had executed a registered will on July. 6, 1966 in favour of Gurmail Singh, Sukhminder Singh and Parampal Singh with regard to her property. The plaintiffs further claimed that taking advantage of their absence from the village, the defendant had taken illegal possession of the suit land in Rabi, 1973. He was asked to vacate the possession but did not do so. Accordingly, the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement filed by him, various technical objections were taken, He claimed that Harnam Kaur was his grand-mother as well as she had given the suit land to Mehar Singh, according to his share. Mehar Singh remained in possession of the same without paying any share of the produce to Harnam Kaur for the last about twenty years and after the death of Mehar Singh, he being a son, started cultivating the land as owner without paying anything to Harnam Kaur. It was alleged that sdle deed in question was illegal, void and inoperative on the rights of the defendant. The defendant claimed that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. It was held that the sale deed Ex.Pl dated September 3, 1973 relied upon by the plaintiffs was a sham transaction, since no consideration was paid by the vendees for transfer of the land. It was held that the defendant had remained in continuous possession of the suit land, as such, had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs gave up their claim on the basis of the Will, Ex.P2, because of the fact that they relied upon the sale deed Ex.P1.

5. The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned first appellate Court found that the sale deed Ex.P 1 was duly proved by the plaintiffs and the same had been executed for due consideration. It was also held that Harnam Kaur, having died on April 20, 1975, had never challenged the aforesaid sale deed during her life time and the defendant being a stranger to the said transaction had no right or locus standi to challenge the sale deed. The plea taken by the defendant that he had become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession was also rejected. It was held that the revenue record produced by the defendant merely showed that he was recorded in possession of the suit land for t