To establish adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove a hostile assertion of ownership, disclaiming the original title from a particular date, which was not accomplished here.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Appellant-defendant No. 1 filed the present appeal against judgement and decree dated 05.05.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which judgement and decree dated 05.08.1989 passed by learned Sub Judge, 1^st Class, Gurgaon was set aside and suit of respondent- plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed and the respondent-plaintiff was held to be owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries showing the plaintiff as mortgagee instead of owner were held to be wrong and defendants were restrained from forcibly taking possession over the suit property.

2. Briefly, the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit land measuring 11 kanals 07 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Dundaheri, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon and revenue entries showing the defendants to be owners and plaintiff as mortgagee instead of owner were claimed to be wrong on the ground that defendants No. 2 to 4 or defendant No. 5 have no right, title or interest in the suit land. Nor they have been in possession of the suit land or any part of the same for the last about 35 years and that the plaintiff is in actual physical cultivating possession of the suit land for the last 35 years and is full-fledged owner continuously, openly, peacefully, without any interruption or objection from any person including the defendants. So, he has become owner by way of adverse possession. Entries showing the defendants to be owners of the suit land and the plaintiff as mortgagee are wrong and the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants No. 2 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.11.1985. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement that defendants No. 2 to 4 were owners of the suit land and they transferred their right in favour of the answering defendant vide registered sale deed dated 27.09.1984 and he is owner in possession of the same. Revenue entries in the names of defendants No. 2 to 4 were correct. Defendants No. 2 to 4 and their predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the suit land as owners for the last about 35 years. Therefore, in the alternative, they had acquired ownership rights by adverse possession. Jamabandi entries were read over in the village openly and the plaintiff never raised any objection regarding those entries. Now the plaintiff is estopped from challenging those entries. The suit land has been transferred in his favour without encumbrances and he is owner in possession of the same. The plaintiff has no right to file the present suit and has no cause of action and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the pleas of defendant No. 1 and reiterated his claim as set out in the plaint and alleged that the sale deed in favour of the answering defendant is illegal, null and void and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff in the suit land.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit is time barred, as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Relief.”

6. In order to prove these issues, the parties led their respective evidence and after hearing arguments, learned Sub Judge, 1^st Class, Gurgaon decreed the suit par