The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires evidence of the defendant's open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period, and the doctrine of acquiescence requires evidence of the plaintiff's consent or silence in the face of a violation of rights.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. During the course of arguments, the following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal.

a) As to whether the learned first appellate Court having held that the defendant had not become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and also having held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation, still the suit of the plaintiff could be dismissed?

b) As to whether the facts and circumstances of the case truly reflected any acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff so as to dismiss his suit for possession?

c) As to whether the findings of the Courts below being based on mis-reading and non-reading of important evidence, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were not termed as judicially perverse and as such liable to be set aside?

2. The plaintiff has approached this court through the present regular second appeal. He filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute situated in village Heon, Tehsil Nawanshahr. It was claimed that the aforesaid land in dispute was the ownership of the plaintiff and that the defendant had taken the forcible possession of the same and without the consent of the plaintiff had raised some construction without any authority. The said construction was illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit land after removing the aforesaid construction.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the suit was barred by limitation and also that the plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct from filling the suit. The defendant further claimed that he had purchased the site in dispute for Rs. 400/- from one Sohan Lal, who is brother of the plaintiff, vide sale deed dated October 13, 1961. It was also claimed that the defendant had raised construction on the aforesaid land in dispute and, therefore, he was in possession of the same for the last 17 years. The defendant also claimed that he had become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of taur No. 86? OPP

2. Whether the defendant has purchased the property in dispute from Sohan Lal on 13.10.61, if so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his acts and conduct to file the present suit? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD

5. Whether the defendants are in possession continuously and without interruption for more than 12 years? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit? OPP

7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether the defendants made construction over the taur in dispute, if so, of what value? OPD.

9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

10. Relief.

4. The parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court held that as per the copy of the allotment letter Ex.P2, the plaintiff had been allotted the site in question at village Heon. On the basis of the documentary as well as other oral evidence led by the parties, it was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff Mohan Singh is the owner of the site in dispute. It was further held that since the defendant had claimed that he had purchased the site in dispute from one Sohan Lal, brother of the plaintiff, therefore, the said sale by aforesaid Sohan Lal was without any authority is as much as Sohan Lal was not shown to be owner of the suit land in any manner. Accordingly, the said sale deed in favour of the defendant was held to be without any authority. However, the learned trial Court held that the defendant had become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and, accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was held to be not within limitation. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. The plaintiff felt aggrieved. He filed an appeal before the learned first Appe