A claim for ownership based on adverse possession requires stringent adherence to pleading and evidentiary standards; mere long possession without clear assertions fails to establish a right.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This judgment has been divided into the following sections:

CM-4173-C-2011

1.1 This is an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of the applicants namely (I) Dr. Mrs. Amarjit Singh wife of Late Dr. Amarjit Singh and (II) Dr. Vanit Nalwa daughter of late Dr. Amarjit Singh, both residents of S-64, Panchseel Park, New Delhi as respondents.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that although by virtue of the present application, two persons were sought to be impleaded but the present application be only considered for impleading applicant No. (ii) i.e. Dr. Vanit Nalwa daughter of late Dr. Amarjit Singh as the applicant No. (i) Dr. Mrs. Amarjit Singh has died. It is submitted that father of Dr. Vanit Nalwa-applicant and applicant No. (i) had purchased a part of the suit property vide registered sale deeds dated 17.11.1989 and 15.05.1998 respectively and that the father of the applicant had executed registered Will in her and her mother’s favour and she has substantial interest in the property in question and thus, she also be given an opportunity of hearing.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present application although has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but the same be treated as an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in case the said application is allowed the applicant should not be permitted to raise any independent plea as at best even as per her own case, she has stepped into the shoes of respondent No. 1 and at best can only assist the Court on the dispute between the original plaintiff and defendants.

5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, the present application is allowed and the applicant namely Dr. Vanit Nalwa daughter of late Dr. Amarjit Singh, resident of S-64, Panchseel Park, New Delhi is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the main Regular Second Appeal and the same would be subject to the right of the said applicant to assist the Court and raise pleas within the parameters of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC.

MAIN CASE

CHALLENGE IN THE INSTANT SECOND APPEAL:

1. LRs of defendant No. 1 and other defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1984 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswa comprised in Khewat No. 21, Khata No. 88, Khasra No. 772(1-5), 773(2-17) situated in Village Nathu Pur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon by virtue of being in adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years, has been decreed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1985 passed by the First Appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the present appellants has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

2. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the primary reason given by both the Courts for holding that the respondent-=plaintiff was entitled to claim ownership on the basis of adverse possession, was the assumption that consolidation proceedings h