JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellants–defendants to assail the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the findings returned by the trial Court were unreservedly affirmed. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.05.1990 rendered by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Rajpura, had decreed the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for possession. The appellants now question the concurrent findings of both Courts below, asserting that the same are legally untenable and factually perverse.

2. At the very outset, it is asserted with utmost clarity that the plaintiff/respondent predicates his claim on his lawful ownership and possession of the suit property, which is as under:-

“In the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent averred that the defendants/appellants had earlier attempted to dispossess him forcibly, compelling him to institute a suit for permanent injunction wherein an ad interim injunction was duly granted. Nevertheless, during the pendency of that suit, and specifically when the matter stood posted for evidence, the defendants/appellants allegedly dispossessed him by force, raised embankments around the disputed property, and placed two Goharas (heaps of cow-dung cakes) upon it. The plaintiff/respondent approached the police authorities, but no action was taken, purportedly owing to the fact that appellant Manjit Singh was the serving Sarpanch of the village. His application in the injunction proceedings seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner was dismissed, rendering the earlier suit infructuous, whereupon he withdrew it and immediately instituted the present suit for possession, asserting that he had been forcibly dispossessed approximately 1 ¼ months prior to its filing”.

3. Upon service of summons, the defendants/appellants entered appearance and filed a contesting written statement claiming therein as under:-

“They asserted ownership and possession of the suit property, characterising it as their ancestral Bara, and categorically denied having dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent 1 ¼ months prior to the institution of the suit. They further pleaded that they had, in any event, perfected title by adverse possession, their possession being continuous, hostile, peaceful, open, and uninterrupted for more than twelve years. The suit was also assailed as being barred by limitation”.

4. Upon a comprehensive and careful scrutiny of the pleadings on record, as well as the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the matters in controversy and, for the purposes of a systematic and legally coherent adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the site in dispute? OPP.

2. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Relief.

5. Upon the framing of issues, both sides were accorded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence. On a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidentiary corpus, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants was subsequently dismissed by the First Appellate Court. It is the challenge to these concurrent findings that has culminated in the present RSA.

6. The appellants have thus approached this Court assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The appeal, having been found to warrant consideration, was duly admitted to regular hearing, and notice was issued to the respondents, who entered appearance through counsel and contested the matter. The appeal was thereafter heard in its entirety on the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties.

6.1 For a comprehensive and informed adjudication, the complete lower Court record was r