JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff, feeling deeply aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the well-reasoned and duly considered judgment and decree dated 03.08.1989 rendered by the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Sonepat, was unjustifiably reversed most respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (for short, “RSA”).

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree stand vitiated by patent perversity, grave misdirection in law, and a demonstrably erroneous appreciation of the evidentiary material on record. The learned First Appellate Court failed to apply the correct legal principles governing appreciation of evidence, misread material documents, and proceeded on assumptions wholly unsupported by the record, thereby causing a substantial miscarriage of justice.

1.2. The appellant further submit that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were based on a meticulous examination of the oral and documentary evidence, and that the decree passed therein was lawful, just, and in strict conformity with the settled legal position. The reversal of such a well-reasoned and judiciously founded decree, without adequate basis or cogent reasoning, renders the impugned appellate judgment legally unsustainable.

1.3. In these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.12.1991, and restore the sound, reasoned, and lawful decree dated 03.08.1989 passed by the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Sonepat, so as to secure the ends of justice.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly set out as under -

“The facts, briefly stated, which have culminated in the filing of the present appeal are as follows. Ishwar, son of Parkash, the real nephew of Sita Ram defendant-respondent herein instituted a suit for possession, asserting his ownership over the land comprised in Khewat No. 138 min, Khata No.183, Rectangle and Killa No. 7/19, measuring 8 kanals 0 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Abbaspur Garhi Bala, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Sita Ram is the real elder brother of the plaintiff’s father.

It was the plaintiff’s case that the land in dispute had been entrusted by Parkash, his father, to the defendant for purposes of cultivation, and that the defendant’s possession was, therefore, that of a lessee. Subsequently, Parkash, the plaintiff’s father, got the land duly transferred in favour of the plaintiff, thereby vesting ownership rights in him. Upon acquiring title, the plaintiff requested the defendant-appellant to hand over possession of the suit land, but the latter refused to do so on 25.07.1987. This necessitated the filing of the present suit for possession.”

3. Upon due service of summons, the defendant entered appearance before the learned Trial Court and proceeded to file their written statement, wherein they set forth the following submissions:-

“The defendant, Sita Ram, contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiff has no cause of action, at least insofar as Killa No. 7/19 is concerned. He further pleaded that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute the suit, as the defendant- appellant has already perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. According to him, his hostile possession commenced on 16.06.1963 and has, since then, remained open, continuous, uninterrupted, and to the full knowledge of the plaintiff and his father, being completely hostile to their rights.

It was additionally averred that Parkash, the plaintiff’s father, had filed an application on 24.02.1964 seeking correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries; however, the said application was dismissed on 08.03.1965. An appeal preferred before the Collector also met the same fate and was dismissed on 28.12.1965. The