JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiff - Suresh (now appellant through his LRs) has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as the suit filed by him seeking decree for possession along with mandatory and permanent injunction of the suit property against sole defendant - Mahinder (now respondent through his LRs) was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2017 and the appeal filed by the said plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 11.04.2022.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. Trial Court record was called and the same has been perused.

3. Subject matter of the dispute is a plot bearing number 354 measuring 318 Sq. yards situated within the abadi deh of village Sitawali, Tehsil and District Sonepat, shown by letter ABCD' in the site plan attached with the plaint.

4. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property, on which his father had constructed two rooms and a boundary wall during his life time. His father had died in 1998 and thereafter, it was inherited by him. Plaintiff alleged that in the month of November, 2009, when he was away from his home, the defendant forcibly took possession thereof and installed his old electricity meter connection in the plot from other residential house and also started raising construction on the disputed property without having any right to do so. Plaintiff prayed for decree of possession.

5. Defendant in written statement disputed the claim of the plaintiff. According to him, father of the plaintiff had sold the suit property to him (defendant) vide an unregistered sale deed/full payment agreement dated 05.06.1993 and had delivered physical possession thereof. After taking possession, defendant raised construction thereon, installed electricity connection in name of his son and ever since then, he is using the same being owner in possession thereof. He also claimed that his possession over the suit property was hostile to the knowledge of father of the plaintiff till 1998 and thereafter to the knowledge of the plaintiff, which is now more than 12 years and therefore, in alternative, he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court found that vide a full payment agreement (Ex.D1), father of the plaintiff had sold the suit property to the defendant on 05.06.1993, which not only bears the thumb impression of Chattar Singh, the father of the plaintiff, but also the signatures of plaintiff himself as an attesting witness. It was further found that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the defendant at that time. The assertion of the plaintiff to the effect that he was dispossessed by the defendant in 2009 was held to be not proved. It was thus found that defendant had purchased the suit property by virtue of an unregistered sale deed. It was also held that plea of adverse possession as claimed by the defendant was not available to him. However, the plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that he did not have any cause of action or locus standi and that he had not come to the Court with clean hands. With these findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.

7. Before the First Appellate Court, contention was raised on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff that possession of the defendant over the suit property was permissive. Said contention of the appellant was found by the Appellate court to be contrary to para No.3 of the plaint, in which it was clearly alleged by the plaintiff that defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit property in 2009, when he was away from the village. First Appellate Court further held that trial Court had rightly held that plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit, as by virtue o