The burden of proof to establish adverse possession lies with the party claiming it, requiring clear evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 (defendant-appellants) challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiff-respondents) for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions was decreed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondents filed the suit averring that vide sale deed dated 22.07.2008 they purchased land measuring 9 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.166/17 situated at Basti Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad (DC Colony Fatehabad) from Joginder Singh and Chhabil Dass. Out of the said purchased land in Khasra No.166//17 the plaintiff-respondents are in possession of plot marked ABCD and the defendants have no concern with the said plot. However, while raising construction on land adjacent to land in Khasra No.166//17 the defendants had also started raising construction over the plot marked ABCD without any right, title or interest therein. Hence, the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The suit was contested by defendants who filed a written statement raising preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, not coming to court with clean hands etc. On merits it was the stand taken that the defendants are in possession of Plot Nos.20, 21, 22 purchased by them from Jugal Kishore and it did not matter in which khasra number the aforesaid plots of the defendants are situated as each plot holder in DC Colony is exclusive owner of the plot purchased by him or each plot holder is to be treated as co-sharers in total land of DC Colony comprised in Khasra Nos.339//11, 12, 19/1, 19/2, 20, 21, 22, 25, 340//13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 situated in Fatehabad and Khasra Nos.166//17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 situated in Basti Bhiwan and that the plaintiff-respondents could not be treated as co-sharers only in Khasra No.166//17 due to a wrong description in their sale deed. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondents had no concern with the ownership and possession of the suit land and that the defendants had raised construction on their plots in 1998 and were in open, peaceful, continuous possession and had become owners of the suit land by lapse of the statutory period of 12 years.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

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

5. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of the court ? OPD

6. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents holding that they had proved their ownership of the suit land. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the defendant-appellants which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the defendant-appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has contended that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. It is urged that the defendant-appellants purchased the