Ownership rights are upheld when supported by adequate documentation, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence of hostile possession, which was not proven in this case.

JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J

This is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1987, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1985 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bhiwani, vide which the suit for permanent injunction and possession filed by the plaintiffs- respondents was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiffs (Sat Narain and Mohan Lal) were both sons of one Sheonand s/o Ram Karan. Proforma defendants No.8 and 9 (Ravi Dutt and Bharat Lal) were also his sons whereas proforma defendant No.10 (Smt. Parwati) was his daughter and proforma defendant No.11 (Smt. Sheobai) was his widow. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 7 (the contesting defendants) from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over site marked by letters ABCD in the accompanying site plan and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the construction raised on the site as marked by letter DCEFGHE and to hand over the possession thereof. The case set up was that Ram Karan was the owner in possession of a plot marked as ABEJKLMNOGHED, situated in Village Sohasra, Tehsil and District Bhiwani in the site plan. After the death of Ram Karan, Sheonand inherited the said plot. Sheonand expired in 1963 and after his death, the plaintiffs and proforma defendants became owners of the said plot.

3.1 It was averred that the plaintiffs were residents of Sangrur and use to visit Village Sohasra occasionally. Defendant No.9 was employed in the Indian Air Force and proforma defendant No.10 was married and settled in her matrimonial home. Proforma defendant No.11 was also residing with the plaintiffs at Sangrur. Only proforma defendant No.8 resided at Sohasra. It was averred that plaintiffs and proforma defendants had constructed a residential house on a portion of the plot shown by letter BIJKLMNOGFL. Some land was kept in the form of Chabutras and the remaining potion (ABCEFGHED) was kept vacant for the purposes of construction of shops. It is this portion which is in dispute.

3.2 It was averred that defendants No.1 to 3, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, constructed a shop and a Chabutra on the eastern side of the plot in dispute. The shop and Chabutra were marked by letters D C F E and D E F GH in the site plan.
3.3 On 05.10.1982, plaintiff No.1 had come to the Village to appear in a case when he came to know about the construction. Upon having raised objection, he was told that defendants No.2 to 6 had purchased the land marked as ABCDEGHED from defendant No.7 vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1982. It was alleged that the said sale deed was bogus as defendant No.7 had no right or interest in the disputed site and, therefore, he could not have transferred it to defendants No.2 to 6. The defendants also intended to raise construction of shops over the land marked as ABCD to which the plaintiffs objected. Since the defendants were not acceding to the requests being made by the plaintiff, the suit was instituted.

4. Defendants No.1 to 7 submitted a joint written statement raising preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, defendants no.1 to 6 being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice etc. On merits, the case set up by the plaintiffs was denied. It was averred that the disputed land was never a plot but was a house in which defendant No.7 used to reside in his own right as owner for the last more than 30 years openly, continuously and to the knowledge of plaintiffs and proforma defendants. It was averred that defendants No.1 to 6 had purchased the disputed site after making inquires and having incurred a sum of Rs.20,000/- even after its purchase.

5. Defendants No.8 to 11 did no