JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants (defendant Nos. 2 and 3), challenging the concurrent findings recorded by Trial Court and First Appellate Court, while decreeing the suit for possession, filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala, as well as judgment and decree dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, respectively.

Facts:

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for seeking possession of first floor of shop No. 1134, Block-V (Old No. 8053/5), Railway Road, Ambala City, District Ambala. Plaintiff pleaded that he is owner and landlord of double storey building bearing No. 1134, Block-V (Old No. 8053/5), Railway Road, Ambala City, and defendants are tenants in the shop on the ground floor under the plaintiff. Earlier, said building was owned by Shri Prahlad Bhagat (father of the plaintiff), who initiated ejectment proceedings against the then tenants in the shop in question, and an ejectment order was passed on 24.01.1980.

3. In the execution proceedings of the said ejectment order, a compromise was effected with the terms that Achhru Ram (defendant No. 1) and another tenant Sham Lal will remain tenants in the shop on the ground floor, and the possession of the first floor and stairs was delivered to the owner (Prahlad Bhagat). After death of tenant - Sham Lal, tenancy rights in the said shop were succeeded by Jatinder Nath and Smt. Daya Wanti wife of Sham Lal (defendant Nos. 2 and 3).

4. Shri Prahlad Bhagat (father of the plaintiff) sold the entire building in question to the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.1996. Thus, since the date of purchase, plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the building and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants herein) are tenants in the shop on ground floor only under the plaintiff. Out of some family settlement between defendant No. 1 and tenant - Sham Lal, it was settled that tenancy rights would be given to one Balkishan son of Achhru Ram (defendant No. 1), and a rent note was executed but possession of the shop was taken by defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

On filing of ejectment petition against Balkishan and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, version of family settlement between Achhru Ram and Sham Lal, was not accepted. Accordingly, ejectment petition was dismissed on 26.03.2008.

5. It is further averred that the possession of the first floor of the building had been delivered to the owner after the sale in his favour and possession of the same was also with the plaintiff until the time defendants illegally occupied the first floor by breaking open the locks of the plaintiff, about a year back.

Because of all the detailed background, plaintiff instituted the suit for possession regarding first floor of the demised shop.

6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of defendant No. 1. Thus, he was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 18.05.2011. One joint written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants herein). In the written statement, it is primarily pleaded that suit property is in possession of the answering defendant Nos. 2 and 3, for the last more than 15 years, to the knowledge of the whole world and, thus, on being occupying the property hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff, they have attained the right of ownership on the basis of adverse possession.

7. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, it was explained that once the defendants are claiming to be in adverse possession, their pleading in the written statement is destructing their own stand because it means that defendants admit the title of the plaintiff in the sui