JUDGMENT

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellant-plaintiff, being deeply aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 22.04.1997, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, respectfully invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by way of this Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as ‘RSA’). By virtue of the assailed judgment, the learned Lower Appellate Court erroneously reversed the well-reasoned findings and decree dated 19.12.1995, pronounced by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, which had originally enured to the benefit of the appellant.

1.1. The appellant seeks the restoration of the decree lawfully granted by the learned Trial Court and prays for appropriate redress against the substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by the first appellate determination. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, egregious errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record. The appellant contends that the reversal of the court of first instance is legally unsustainable and has resulted in grave injustice; therefore, it is prayed that this Court set aside the impugned decree and reinstate the well-considered judgment of the learned Trial Court.

2. The sequence of events leading up to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly delineated as follows:-

Originally, Karam Chand, son of Boota Ram, was the owner of land measuring 2 kanals and 19 marlas. By virtue of a consent decree dated 05.06.1972, the said Karam Chand transferred the suit land, along with certain other parcels, in favour of the plaintiff-Manju. In the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted her ownership over the suit property and has averred that the defendants, taking undue advantage of her absence and without her consent, unlawfully trespassed upon the suit land and raised unauthorized and haphazard constructions thereon. It is alleged that the defendants are in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit property.

It has further been pleaded that the cause of action arose approximately one week prior to the institution of the suit, when the defendants, despite demand, categorically refused to restore possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

Hence the suit.

3. Upon service of notice, the defendants namely Gaushala Fazilka through its President and Manager entered appearance and filed a written statement contesting the suit. By way of preliminary objections, it was contended that the suit was undervalued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, particularly in view of the construction allegedly raised on the suit land at a substantial cost. The defendants further pleaded long- standing possession of over five decades and asserted title by way of adverse possession.

3.1. It was additionally averred that the plaintiff was estopped by her conduct, having acquiesced to the construction raised in her knowledge as well as that of the previous owner. Objections were also taken regarding absence of proper demarcation and non-filing of a site plan in accordance with the applicable Rules and Orders. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff had obtained the property through a consent decree with full knowledge of their possession, thereby rendering the suit barred by limitation.

3.2. On merits, the defendants denied the plaintiff’s claims and reiterated their continuous possession for over 50–60 years, asserting that the construction was raised with the knowledge of the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. In replication, the plaintiff refuted the said averments and reaffirmed the assertions made in the plaint, specifically denying the defendants’ possession as alleged.

4. Upon a meticulous and comprehensive examination of the pleadings, documentary material, and rival submissions advanced by the parties, the Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the matters in controversy and, for the purpose o