The burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the defendant, who must admit the ownership of the true owner and involve the true owner in the suit to establish adverse possession. Substantial evidence is required to prove adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, and hostility.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the defendantappellant against the judgments and decrees dated 16.05.2016 and 30.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, respectively, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was subsequently dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent (RBL Banarsi Dass Trust Society) is a registered Trust which is owner of House No.4291 and House No.4291/2, behind B.D. Senior Secondary School, Cross-Road No.2, Ambala Cantt. One Hans Raj Sharma (father of the defendant-appellant) was a tenant in House No.4291 under the plaintiff-respondent Trust and after his death his son occupied it as tenant. The adjoining portion of House No.4291 i.e. House No.4291/2 was occupied by one Amar Nath Sharma, maternal uncle of the defendant-appellant, at a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The said Amar Nath Sharma died without leaving any Class-1 legal heir. After his death, the defendant-appellant is stated to have occupied the said portion i.e. House No.4291/2 and started paying rent for the same against receipts after signing the counterfoils of the rent receipts either himself or through his wife, namely, Chhaya Sharma.

3. On 21.04.2005 the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit [Civil Suit No.18 of 2005] for permanent injunction against the defendantappellant in respect of both the properties i.e. House Nos.4291 and 4291/2 which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2007. The appeal filed by defendant-appellant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.01.2008.

4. The plaintiff-respondent Trust also filed an ejectment petition against the defendant-appellant qua House No.4291 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Rent Controller. An appeal against the said order dated 28.02.2009 was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide it's order dated 21.01.2010. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed being CR-3504-2010 [Kuldeep Kumar Sharma vs. R.B.L. Banarsi Dass Trust Society Regd.] which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2011. The defendant-appellant filed SLP No.2034 of 2011 which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2011 granting the defendant-appellant 9 months' time to vacate the suit property therein i.e. House No.4291. The said House No.4291 was vacated in May, 2012.

5. The plaintiff-respondent Trust also filed an ejectment petition for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the portion of the property bearing House No.4291/2. The defendant-appellant denied himself to being a tenant in House No.4291/2. The said ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 09.04.2010 holding that the defendantappellant did not inherit the tenancy rights of the said portion after the death of Amar Nath Sharma and therefore he was not the tenant under the plaintiff-respondent Trust. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent Trust was dismissed on 25.01.2013.

6. In April 2013 the present suit for recovery of possession of House No.4291/2 and mesne profits for the use and occupation of the premises for the period from 22.04.2010 to 21.04.2013 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Trust. On notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed his written statement alleging therein that he had taken forcible possession of the suit property by breaking the locks in June 1995 and his possession was hostile, continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful to the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent Trust and hence his possession has matured into ownership by way of adverse possession. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Trust reiterating the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property as prayed for as well as