The main legal point established is that ownership and possession of property must be substantiated with valid evidence, and the registration requirement for sale deeds under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act must be adhered to.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. This is the regular second appeal filed by defendant-appellant- Basant Kaur for setting aside impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the trial Court as well as judgment and decree dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the appeal are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit against the defendant-appellant for a decree of possession on the grounds that plaintiff No. 1 along with her brother Telu Ram and sister Seeto alias Surjit Kaur were owners of the suit property. Telu Ram and Seeto alias Surjit Kaur have expired and plaintiffs No. 2 and 7 are their legal heirs and they entered into footsteps of Telu Ram and Seeto alias Surjit Kaur and now the plaintiffs have became the owners of the suit property at the spot. The defendants have no right, title or interest with the suit property in any manner. The property of the defendants is adjoining to the suit property and they were threatening to encroach upon the suit property and raised construction over the suit property forcibly, due to which the suit for permanent injunction was filed against the defendants. Said suit was already pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhuri. During pendency of the suit, the defendants forcibly encroached upon the suit property and raised a wall and entered into illegal possession of the suit property at the spot, due to which said suit for permanent injunction was dismissed as infructuous and as such, plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and defendants were requested to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs but to no effect.

3. Upon notice, defendants filed written statement and legal objections regarding maintainability of the suit, concealment of real facts were raised. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession of the property as detailed in amended head note of plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have concealed material facts from the Court ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

5. Relief."

4. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit property and defendants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within a period of three months from the date of judgment.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, defendants Ajaib Singh and Basant Kaur filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. The appeal was dismissed and judgment of the trial Court was upheld.

6. After losing before the Courts below i.e. trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court, appellant-Basant Kaur has approached this Court by way of filing regular second appeal by raising various grounds.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. The judgments of both the Courts below are based on non-appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court has wrongly recorded in its judgment that sale deed dated 29.11.1967 was not proved whereas Parkash Chand had duly scribed the sale deed. The attesting witnesses have already expired. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that plea of adverse possession was also not taken into consideration. The appellant-defendant examined DW-1 Kashmir Singh Dhindsa, Approved Draftsman, who had tendered into evidence his affidavit as Exhibit DW-1/A wherein he has deposed that map dated 23.11.2011 was prepared by him at the instance of Ajaib Singh after inspecting the spot. He identified his stamp and signatures on the same. He had also approved the map as Exhibit D-1. At the end, learned co