Mere long possession cannot establish adverse possession. Permissive possession cannot be adverse possession. Suit for possession on the basis of title is not barred by limitation if adverse possession is not proven.

Darshan Singh, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Tract Court-II, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dasuya, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. Plaintiff-respondent Kashmir Singh has brought a suit for possession of land measuring 2 Kanals comprised of Khasra no. 61 (4-0) situated at Village Kalu Chang on the allegations that he and his brothers namely Balbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh are joint owners in possession thereof. Defendants have got no right, title or interest in the suit land. They are strong headed persons and taking the undue advantage of their man-power, they had taken the illegal possession of the land measuring 2 Kanals out of the aforesaid Khasra number. Their possession is illegal and unauthorized and is that of a trespasser. They are liable to vacate the suit land after the removal of the superstructure. In the alternative, the plaintiffs have prayed for the possession of that much area of the land out of the aforesaid khasra number which is found to be in illegal possession of the defendants on demarcation. Hence the suit.

4. Appellant-Darshan Singh and his co-defendants contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that though the plaintiff is recorded as owner in the revenue record, but, infact the defendants no. 1 to 4 had constructed their residential houses in the disputed property in the area measuring 2 Kanals about more than 50 years back. The said property is in possession of the defendants since long as the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Lehnu had given it to the father of defendants no. 1 to 4 namely Teja Singh, who got constructed his residential house and at that time the grandfather of the plaintiff was alive. It is further pleaded that the possession of the defendants over the suit property is open, hostile, without any interruption and they have become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Thus, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiff filed the replication controverting the pleas raised in the written statement.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.10.2001:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit land after removal of the super structure? OPP

2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of that much area which ever is found encroached by the deft. Out of the suit land of Kh. No. 61(4-0), after removal of the super structure over it? OPP

3. Whether defendants nos. 1 to 4 have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file this suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his act and conduct? OPD

8. Relief.

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.04.2007.

8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant preferred the appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2011. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

9. I have heard Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents and have meticulously gone through the paper book.

10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the