The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants-defendants failed to establish adverse possession, as they could not prove the essential ingredients required for adverse possession.

Darshan Singh, J.

CM No. 16106-C of 2016

This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the present appeal.

Heard.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application stands allowed and the delay of 178 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA No. 6123 of 2016(O&M)

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Moonak, has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiff-Jagga Singh filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit land measuring 219 kanal 12 marlas, 0 kanal 19 marlas and 2 kanal 9 marlas detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of village Alampur. He also sought the relief of joint possession with respect to the land measuring 0 kanal 19 marlas and 2 kanal 9 marlas to the extent of 1/4th share. In the consequential relief, he sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from alienating the 1/4th share of the plaintiff out of the suit property.

3. As per averments in the plaint, the suit land was earlier owned by Harchand Singh, the father of the plaintiff. After the death of his father, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in his favour and he became the joint owner in possession of the suit land as per the share of his father. He got 1/4th share of khasra no.124 (0-13), 318 (0-6) and 200 (2-9). The defendants have no concern with 1/4th share of the plaintiff over the suit land. He is entitled to the relief of joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit land. Defendants in connivance with each other intend to alienate the suit property and also wants to raise the construction therein for which they have no legal right. Hence, the suit.

4. Appellants-defendants no. 1 to 4 contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that they have no connection with the agriculture land measuring 219 kanal 12 marlas belonging to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the father of the plaintiff-Harchand Singh had no concern and was not in possession of the land comprised of khata no. 86/243, khasra no.200 (2-9) to the extent of 1/4th share. Rather, the appellants-defendants are in continuous, peaceful, open, hostile, notorious, uninterrupted and exclusive possession thereof as owner to the knowledge of the plaintiff, his father and the whole world since 06.02.1979. Since then, the appellantsdefendants have been using the land in dispute exclusively and continuously. They are tethering their cattle's and have also constructed a boundary wall on three sides. They have also placed their cow dung and have sown the vegetables and trees. In the year 1996, the father of the plaintiff has raised the objection to the possession of the appellants, but with the intervention of the Panchayat and respectable persons of the village, it was orally settled that the balance amount of loan taken by the father of the plaintiff would be paid by the appellants-defendants to the Punjab Agriculture Development Bank, which was actually paid by defendant no.1- Sukhdev Singh. Since then, the adverse possession of the defendants over the suit land was admitted by the father of the plaintiff. Thus, they pleaded that the defendants have become the owner in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The mutation of inheritance with respect to the 1/4th share of the land bearing 2 kanal 9 marlas has been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff at the back of the defendants. The said mutation has no effect on the rights of the defendants.

5. Defendants no. 5 and 6 have also contested the suit by filing the separa