JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, in as much as, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002, thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. The record of the trial Court has been received and carefully perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Translated copies of the relevant documents have also been placed on record for proper appreciation.

3. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

4. The subject matter of the dispute pertains to land measuring 41 Kanal 3 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Sunam, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

5.1 Plaintiff’s Case : As per the case set up by the plaintiffs, their predecessor-in-interest, namely Baljit Singh, had taken forcible possession of the suit land on 13.04.1968, at a time when the land was owned by Gram Panchayat Moranwali. Subsequently, upon inclusion of the area within municipal limits, the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist, and all its rights, title, and interest in the suit land stood vested in the defendant (respondent herein) Nagar Council, Sunam.

5.2 Baljit Singh is stated to have remained in possession of the suit land till his death in October, 1980. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, being his widow and sons, claim to have continued in uninterrupted possession of the suit property. It is their specific case that neither Baljit Singh nor the plaintiffs ever paid any rent, lease amount, or ‘chakota’ to the defendant or its predecessor. The plaintiffs assert that their possession, as well as that of their predecessor, has been actual, open, continuous, uninterrupted, hostile, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby fulfilling all the necessary ingredients of adverse possession. On this premise, it is claimed that the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

5.3 It is further averred that the defendant, taking advantage of its recorded ownership in the revenue records, has been attempting to transfer the suit property and to dispossess the plaintiffs by use of force. Despite requests made by the plaintiffs to recognize their rights, the defendant failed to accede, compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership by way of adverse possession, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property or interfering with their possession.

6. Defendant’s Stand : Contesting the suit, the defendant though admitted that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property as reflected in the revenue record, but specifically denied that the plaintiffs had acquired ownership by adverse possession. Several preliminary objections were also raised, including want of statutory notice, lack of locus standi, estoppel, and concealment of material facts, besides the plea that the suit was frivolous and instituted only to harass the defendant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both parties led their respective evidence in support of their claims, which was taken on record.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Both sides led their respective evidence, which was duly taken on record.

9.1 Findings of the Courts below: Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court returned a finding tha