Adverse possession requires hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period.

1. The appellants before me are the plaintiffs in the suit. They brought a suit alleging that Ram Rattan, ancestor of the plaintiffs, was the owner in possession of the property in dispute. A rent note was executed by the defendant-respondent and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs as Ram Rattan having died in the year 1953, the plaintiffs inherited his property. It was alleged that the defendant, who is the tenant, having failed to pay the rent after the death of Ram Rattan, was liable to be ejected. In the alternative it was prayed that if the defendant was not found to be a tenant and found to be in illegal possession of the suit land, the suit for possession be decreed. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that Ram Rattan was neither the owner of the property in dispute nor was in possession thereof. He further pleaded that he never took the said property on rent from Ram Rattan and also that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispute. It was the open place, to begin with, and the defendant was not the tenant under the plaintiffs. In fact he was in possession of the said property for more than 12 years and, therefore, his possession had ripened into adverse possession. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

2. The learned trial Judge framed the following five issues:-

-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in suit?

2. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?

3. If issue No. 2 is not proved and issue No. 1 is proved whether the defendant has become the owner of the site in suit by adverse possession? If so, to what effect?

4. Whether the suit is within limitation?

5. Relief?

3. The learned trial Judge decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs, issue No. 3 in favour of the defendant and issue No. 4 against the plaintiffs, and, therefore, dismissed the suit.

4. The learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in dispute but maintained the finding of the learned trial Court on issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and, therefore, dismissed the suit. I have heard Mr. M. S. Pannu, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. G. R. Majithia, the learned counsel for the respondent, at considerable length and have also gone through the records. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is quite forceful when he says that the approach of both the Courts below on issues Nos. 3 and 4 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel frankly conceded that the finding on issue No. 2 is more or less in the nature of the findings of facts and it is not open to this Court to go into the said finding of fact. He, therefore, contended that he would not address arguments on issue No. 2 as the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below is binding on this Court. But he contended that under issue No. 3, onus heavily lies on the defendant to prove the same as he claims adverse possession on the land in dispute. He contends that the case of the appellants throughout had been that they were the owners of the property in dispute as they inherited the same. They nowhere claimed that they were in possession of the property by way of adverse possession. The learned counsel contends that the defendant has to show his possession hostile towards the real owners. The learned counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below have misread the evidence of Pakhar Singh (P.W. 3). This witness categorically proved the copy of the writing of the register of the petition writer Exhibit P-7 by which he took the land in dispute on rent from the plaintiffs ancestor Shri Ram Rattan. He further pointed out from the statement of Pakhar Singh that he continued to be in possession as a tenant of the land for four years. The learned counsel contends that the writing Exhibit P-7 was written on