The court established that a claim of adverse possession is inconsistent with acknowledgment of another's title, affirming the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in possession disputes.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

These three Regular Second Appeals have arisen out of two judgments passed by the Courts below in two separate Civil Suits, on identical facts and involving same issues.

2.1 Plaintiffs in both the suits are common i.e. Mukhtiar Singh etc. (appellants of RSA N:1734-1990 & 1735-1990; respondents in RSA N: 1245-1990), who sought possession of the suit property on the basis of their title, by pleading unauthorized possession of the defendants. Civil Suit No.756 of 1985 was filed against Kartar Singh & Harnam Singh (appellants in RSA N:1245-1990) sons of Santa, claiming possession of 56 kanal 14 marla of land situated in Village Adhoya, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra; whereas Civil Suit No.806 of 1985 was filed against defendant Shingara Singh (respondent in RSA N: 1734-1990) claiming possession of land measuring 8 kanal situated in the same village Adhoya of Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

2.2 In both the suits, defendants resisted the claim, by contending to be in possession of the suit land and that they had become owner thereof by way of adverse possession. They, thus, denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed their own title by way of adverse possession.

2.3 The issues in both the suits before the trial Court were as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit land being owners; or as to whether defendants have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

2.4 In both the cases, the trial Court, after taking evidence produced by the parties, held that plaintiffs were the owner of the property in dispute; and that defendants had failed to prove that they had perfected their title by way adverse possession. As such, both the suits were decreed by the trial Court on 22.02.1988 by way of separate but identical judgments. That led to filing of two separate appeals by the defendants of the cases.

2.5 Before the First Appellate Court, in the Civil Appeal N:98 of 1988/1989 arising out of Civil Suit No.756 of 1985, defendants conceded that they did not have any concern with 8 kanal of land as comprised in Rectangle No.8 Khasra No.25 and that they confined their claim of title by way of possession only in respect of remaining 48 kanal 14 marla of land.

2.6 The First Appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court to the extent that plaintiffs were owner of the suit land. The First Appellate Court further upheld the finding of the trial Court to the effect that defendants had failed to perfect their title by way of adverse possession and thus, they had not become owner thereof. However, the First Appellate Court found the defendants to be tenants on the suit land since prior to asserting their unauthorized possession. It was further held that by mere denial of the title of the landlord, they had not forfeited their right to be tenants on the suit land. The First Appellate Court further held that since the defendants were tenants in possession of the suit land, therefore, Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant decree of possession to the plaintiffs; and that remedy for the plaintiffs lied with the revenue Court. With these findings, by setting aside of judgments of trial court, appeals were accepted on 20.4.1990 and suits were dismissed. Suit N: 756 of 1985 was dismissed except to the extent of 8 Kanals.

2.7 Since the plaintiffs have been thus non-suited on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, so the plaintiffs have filed two separate Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA Nos.1734 & 1735 of 1990. On the other hand, defendant Kartar Singh of Civil Suit No.756 of 1985 filed independent RSA No.1245 of 1990, claiming that he was also in possession of the land measuring 8 kanal comprised in Rect. No.8 Khasra No.25 and that he had not authorized his counsel before the First Appellate Court to repudiate the claim in respect of the said land. He claimed that the First Appellate Court should have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in toto.

3