Adverse possession does not confer ownership, and permissive possession does not convert into adverse possession.

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Since both these appeals put challenge to the same judgment and order dated 28.2.2015 rendered by the 8th Additional District Judge, Dehradun while adjudicating the Civil Appeal No. 72/2010,Dr. Rahul Khanna v. Sukhram, hence these are being taken up together for passing this verdict.

2. At the time of admission of Second Appeal No. 54/2015, following substantial question of law was formulated:

“Whether long peaceful, uninterrupted possession in knowledge of true owner can be referred to as permissive possession when the occupier had raised constructions of permanent nature in knowledge of true owner?”

3. At the time of admission of Second Appeal No. 57/2015, following substantial questions of law were formulated:

“1. Whether plaintiff could have claimed any right over the property in question on the basis of alleged sale-deed dated 28.9.1991 allegedly executed by grandsons of late Rani Padmawati, who already lost her right/title over the property in question by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, on failure to institute suit for possession against defendant within prescribed period of limitation?

2. Whether once alleged Will dated 24.12.1975 in favour of predecessors in title of plaintiff was not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, lower appellate court could have relied upon alleged sale-deed dated 28.9.1991 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of alleged Will dated 24.12.1975?

3. Whether evidence of power of attorney holder of the plaintiff Rahul Khanna could be relied upon about the facts in the knowledge of Principal, except the acts and deeds performed by the agent?

4. Whether judgment and decree of lower appellate court is vitiated and is nonest for not framing and deciding the issues under Order 20 Rule 4 & 5 C.P.C./Points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C.?”

4. Since the question no. 1 in both these appeals are interlinked together, hence being taken up jointly for consideration. Before proceeding further to answer the questions, it would be pertinent to have a glance upon the brief facts of the case.

5. The property, in question, is a small part, ad measuring 40 × 100 ft. = 4000 sq. ft. (admitted by the defendant in his written statement), of a big land having a bungalow bearing the municipal no. 4, Old Survey Road, Dehradun. This big property initially was sprawling in more than 20 bighas of land, which was originally owned by Rani Padmawati inheriting the same after the death of her husband Maharaja Jagat Dev Singh. Since the area was not densely populated and this small piece of land was beside a canal and Rani Padmawati, residing in her palatial building situated in such sprawling campus, could not even soon notice as to which person has commenced living in one corner of such land after making the improvised arrangement for his dwelling. Since her only son Raja Shiv Ratan Devi Singh had already passed away and she had done the marriage of her two daughters Lalita Kumari and Snehlata in the affluent families of Delhi, hence at the age of 70 years, finding herself alone with the two grandsons, namely, Raja Satish Devi @ Ratish Dev and Raja Raman Dev, she executed a registered Will dated 24.12.1975 bequeathing all her estate to these grandsons. She passed away on 22.10.1977. So, this property was succeeded by these aforenamed grandsons. One of the grandsons Raja Raman Dev entered into an oral agreement in 1978 to sell this property to the owners of General Motors Stores and such agreement was reduced in writing on 21.1.1983, registered on 29.1.1983. One additional agreement was also written on 3.7.1985 in favour of R.K. Ahuja and one partner of General Motors and this agreement was also got registered on 12.7.1985. As the second brother Raja Ratish Dev feeling annoyed with making the aforementioned agreement on the part of his brother Raja Raman Dev, so he instituted an Original Suit No. 64/1990 f