The main legal point established is the requirement for parties to provide evidence to support their claims, and the lack of substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. -

CM No.7684-C of 2022:

1. This is an application for condonation of 14 days delay in re-filling the present appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 14 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM No.7682-C of 2022:

3. This is an application for condonation of 131 days delay in filling the present appeal.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 131 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

RSA No. 2219 of 2022 (O & M):

1. This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for possession of the property shown in red colour in the site plan which is part of Rect. No. 183, killa no. 37/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1 measuring 13 kanal 15 marla of its 10/275th share, i.e., 10 marla at the cost of defendants. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners on the strength of registered sale deed vasika no. 3765 registered on 20.9.2005 and supplementary sale deed vasika no. 998 dated 14.5.2010, executed by Dinesh Kumar and others the previous owners, as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99. Mutation on that basis were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on 2.12.2005 and 30.7.2010 respectively.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') claiming that the suit property was never delivered to the plaintiffs by their vendor or anybody else. The defendants claimed that before them one Salekh Chand remained in possession of the property. He perfected his title by adverse possession, asserted to the alleged vendors of the plaintiffs in August 1979. Salekh Chand resided in the property by constructing rooms and tin-shed there. He subsequently surrendered possession to Madan Lal son of Ghisa Ram. This Madan Lal surrendered possession to the defendants, and this fact was to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their family members in 2005. It was, therefore, claimed that the defendants' possession of the suit property is based upon perfected title of Salekh Chand by adverse possession, which was opened and hostile to the knowledge of the alleged vendors of the plaintiffs.

4. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek a decree for possession by way of demolition of construction at the expenses of defendant from property shown with red colour in the site plan marked BEFGHIJ described in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of the Court? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The suit was adjudicated on the basis of the findings on Issue No.1 only. On the remaining issues the defendants led no evidence nor pressed the same, and were accordingly decided against them.

6. While recording findings on Issue no.1, both the Courts have held that DW-3, Shiv Om son of Salekh Chand, in his deposition nowhere stated that his father had constructed rooms and tin-shed over the suit property, as has been pleaded by the defendants. Further, this witness in his deposition referred to an agreement to sell dated 27.3.2005, Ex. D-3, said to have been executed by Salekh Chand in favour of Akku (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants), but there is no pleading to that effect in the written statement. It was further held by the Courts below that the writing, Ex.D-3, had interpolations, and, therefore, the same could not be taken to be a genuine document. The second document, Ex. D-2, is another agreement to sell dated 11.6.2005, said to have been executed by Madan Lal with respect to the property in dispute in favour of Akku (prede