The central legal point established is that the transfer of land after the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act to the State of Punjab required a registered document, and adverse possession was not established.

JUDGMENT :

LISA GILL, J.

1. Appellant-defendant No.1, is aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 28.01.2014, passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tarn Taran, as well as judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the plaintiff-Gurudwara Beer Sahib (Baba Budha Ji) filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that it is the owner of land measuring 130 Kanal 14 Marias as detailed in the plaint as well as for possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is pleaded that the land in question was donated to Gurudwara Beer Sahib (Baba Budha Ji) for the purposes of running a school under the management and control of Gurudwara Sahib known as School Baba Beer Baba Budha Sahib by Kundan Singh son of Achhar Singh. This land was donated through an oral gift deed and mutation of this land was duly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff vide mutation no. 729 dated 27.12.1952. The plaintiff thus claimed to have become the owner in possession of the suit land. Appellant-defendant no.1 is alleged to have got the entries of the suit land changed in the revenue record in an illegal manner. Defendant no.1 was stated to be in illegal, unauthorized, unlawful possession of the suit property. From the very inception of the opening of the school under the name and style of School Beer Baba Budha Sahib, it is claimed to be under the management and control of the plaintiff-Gurudwara, which was paying salaries of the staff and bearing all other expenses. It is stated that previously a suit was wrongly filed in the name of Beer Baba Budha Sahib School, which was withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Plaintiff requested the defendants to admit the abovesaid claim, but defendants refused to do so. Hence the suit was filed.

3. Defendant no.1 contested the suit while defendant no.2 was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC qua defendants no.3 and 4. Various preliminary objections were taken by defendant no.1 (present appellant) in the written statement. It is stated that originally the land was initially gifted by its owner Kundan Singh to Baba Kharak Singh through an oral gift deed. It is due to an inadvertent mistake that mutation was sanctioned in favour of Khalsa High School Beer Baba Budha Sahib. Managing Committee of the school passed a resolution no.15 dated 18.09.1977 for correction of the revenue record in favour of Baba Kharak Singh. Mutation of ownership was accordingly sanctioned in favour of Baba Kharak Singh instead of the school vide mutation no. 1555 dated 14.10.1977 and 09.11.1977. After verifying the ownership of Baba Kharak Singh, the present appellant purchased the suit land vide two sale deeds dated 07.06.1979 and the said sale deeds were duly executed by Baba Kharak Singh in favour of the appellant for valuable consideration of Rs. 7500/- each. Defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit property as its owner. Appellant-defendant no.1 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice. It is further claimed that his possession had otherwise matured into full ownership by adverse possession being open, hostile, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

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

5. Whether the present suit is within the period of limitation? OPD

6. Whether the present suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdi