JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiffs - Smt. Naino Devi and others (contesting respondents N: 1 to 10 herein) in respect of the property in dispute was decreed by the learned trial Court on 26.08.1995, and the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 02.05.2001, thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. To obviate confusion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Admittedly, the property in dispute was owned by Gurmukh Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, who had purchased it in an open auction from the Department of Rehabilitation. As per the plaintiffs' case, their predecessor Gurmukh Singh had leased out the suit property to defendant No.1 - Amar Nath (appellant herein), at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/, who in turn gave a portion thereof to defendant No.2 Mulkh Raj. It was alleged that no rent was ever paid to the landlord. An ejectment petition filed in the year 1986 came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that tenancy was not proved. Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking possession of the suit property on the basis of ownership, alleging that the defendants were in illegal occupation, and further claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.4. In the written statement, the defendants pleaded that Gurmukh Singh, after purchasing the suit property from the Department of Rehabilitation, had agreed to sell the same to defendant No.1 and Hans Raj (predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.2 to 4 - performa respondents herein) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 725/- vide an agreement to sell dated 07.05.1963. It was averred that an amount of Rs. 525/- was paid as earnest money, with the balance of Rs. 200/- to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, which was to be executed after Gurmukh Singh obtained the conveyance deed from the Rehabilitation Department. It was further stated that Gurmukh Singh had undertaken to remove the debris (malba) from the property within two months. According to the defendants, the balance consideration of Rs. 200/- was duly paid to Gurmukh Singh, as evidenced by receipt dated 15.09.1963. Thereafter, defendant No.1 and Hans Raj submitted a site plan to the erstwhile Municipal Committee, Jalandhar, which was sanctioned in 1963, whereupon they raised construction and have been residing therein ever since. They contended that their possession, being open, continuous and to the knowledge of Gurmukh Singh and the plaintiffs, had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession. Alternatively, they asserted readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract but claimed that they were never informed about the issuance of the conveyance deed in favour of Gurmukh Singh. They had even instituted a suit for specific performance. The defendants, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit and protection of their possession under Section 53A of the T ransfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. Upon framing of the necessary issues and appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession on 26.08.1995.

6. In appeal, the defendants produced the agreement to sell dated 07.05.1963 (Ex.DZ) and receipt dated 15.09.1963 (Ex.DZ/1) by way of additional evidence. The learned First Appellate Court held that both documents stood duly proved on record. However, it concluded that the defendants had failed to satisfy the essential requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to claim protection of possession and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 02.05.2001.

7. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that the possession of the defen