The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the defendants failed to prove these elements.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Defendants filed this appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession in respect of property marked by letters 'A, B, C, D, E, F, G' shown by red and white colour in the site plan Ex.PW11/1 minus property shown by green colour marked as K1, K2 and K3. Plaintiff averred that he was owner of this property. One Chhutan and his son Ram Sarup were tenants over the whole of the property shown under the plaintiff. Chhutan and Ram Sarup had executed a rent note on 11.12.1936 Ex.PW4/1. Defendants No.2 and 3 were sons of Chhutan and defendant No.1 is son of Prabhu Dayal son of Chhutan i.e. grand son of Chhutan.

3. After the death of Chhutan, rent note Ex.PW12/2 was executed by Ram Sarup alone on 10.02.1941. Another rent note Ex.PW3/1 was executed by Prabhu Dayal and Kanhiya Lal sons of Chhutan on 31.03.1944. Thereafter, another rent note Ex.PW4/2 was executed by Kanhiya Lal alone on 05.09.1945. One more rent note Ex.PW12/1 was executed by Kanhiya Lal alone on 07.03.1952. Plaintiff had filed an ejectment petition against the defendants, Kanhiya Lal and another person Piare Lal from the property in question. In the said rent petition, Kanhiya Lal who was executant of latest rent note was described as main tenant and other defendants including Piare Lal were shown to be sub tenants in the property. Said rent petition was allowed and ejectment was ordered by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon on 06.12.1968. However, the Lower Appellate Court upheld the ejectment only qua Kanhiya Lal by order dated 05.01.1973, whereas ejectment qua others was declined as the alleged sub tenancy was not proved.

4. Thereafter, question as to from which portion Kanhiya Lal was to be ejected was left to be decided by the executing Court. Executing Court ultimately held that Kanhiya Lal was in exclusive possession of the property shown by green colour in the site plan Ex.PW11/1 and the said property was marked by letters K1, K2 and K3. Kanhiya Lal surrendered possession of said portion to the plaintiff. Piare Lal was sister's husband of Kanhiya Lal i.e. son-in-law of Chhutan. The tenancy of Chhutan had commenced prior to the year 1936 and rent note was executed on 11.12.1936 Ex.PW4/1, which was executed by Chhutan and Ram Sarup. Defendants were born in this property and they lived in this property as licencees under Chhutan being the family members. When Chhutan became old, he got the tenancy changed in favour of his eldest son Ram Sarup. Other sons of Chhutan along with other family members resided in the house as licencees being family members under that tenant. However, Ram Sarup died and thereafter, rent note was executed by Prabhu Dayal and Kanhiya Lal Ex.PW3/1 jointly, who were major sons of Chhutan. Thereafter, Prabhu Dayal did not execute the rent note himself but got the same executed from Kanhiya Lal his younger brother and the family members resided with him as licencees being members of the same family. Joint Hindu family of Chhutan disrupted and Kanhiya Lal and the defendants separated from each other and came to occupy the separate portion in the property in question. Property marked by letters Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 came to be occupied by Yad Ram. Property marked by letters T1, T2 came to be occupied by Thaker. Property marked by letters P1, P2, P3 and P4 came to be occupied by Piare Lal and the property marked by letters K1, K2, K3 came to be occupied by Kanhiya Lal. Sehan and Rasta which was not by any colour in the site plan Ex.PW11/1 remained common between them.

5. It is further alleged that order of ejectment was passed against Kanhiya Lal alone on 26.03.1980 and he vacated the portion marked by letters K1, K2 and K3. Yad Ram, Thaker and Piare Lal continued in the remaining portion of the property under dispute. Plaintiff alleged that the status of the defendants was that of licensees and previous stand take