1. This appeal was admitted on 18.2.1992 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding that the respondent-plaintiff had perfected his title over the suit land by remaining in possession for more than 12 years, is legal and justified?"

2. Learned counsel for appellants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on following grounds:

(i) That the plaintiff/respondent took inconsistent pleas in the case. On one hand plaintiff took plea that the land was exchanged by the father of plaintiff Ranchor Singh with Ram Pratap Singh, the father of appellants No. 1 to 3 and 5 and husband of appellant No.4 and Smt. Manu Kunwar, and simultaneously the plaintiff pleaded adverse possession on the aforesaid land. Both the pleadings were inconsistent and conflicting and on the basis of these pleadings suit ought to have been dismissed. Reliance is placed to apex Court judgment in Karnataka Board of WAKF v. Government of India and others [(2004) 10 SCC 779] and a decision of this Court in Biharilal v. Jegannath [1992 RN 81].

(ii) That the trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff