Atul Kumar Jain, J.— The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following rulings.

(1) Heera Lal v. Municipal council, Churu &Anr., 2004(4) WLC (Raj.) 414.

In this case it was it was held that a person who is in settled possession of land, cannot be dispossessed without due process of law.

(2) Ram Path & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2009(7) SCC 614: 2009(5) Supreme 216.

In this case, necessary ingredients of settled or actual possession were discussed in relation to right of private defence of accused person in criminal case.

(3) Sukha Singh & Anr. v. Mahal Singh &Anr, 2002(4) WLC (Raj.) 152).

In this case it was held that while deciding application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, prima facie case should not be confused with prima facie title.

2. The learned Advocate for the respondent-TUI has relied upon the following ruling:

(1) State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, 2012 AIR SCW 276.

In this case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has felt an urgent need of suitable changes in law of adverse possession. It was also held in this case that outmoded law of adverse possession essentially asks the judiciary to place its stamp of approval upon conduct that the ordinary In