Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 27.08.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., dated 08.01.2019, was affirmed whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they are absolute owners of the suit land bearing khasra No.360. It was averred that defendants had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 0-4 biswas, who are owners of adjoining property. The plaintiffs had applied for demarcation of their land and Tehsildar Baddi conducted demarcation on 30.06.2024 in presence of the defendants and other local persons including adjoining land owners. The demarcating officer found the defendants to be in unlwaful and unauthorised possession of 0-4 biswas of land out of khasra No. 360 and prepared tatima of encroached area, which was shown by the demarcating officer as tatima khasra No. 360/1 in the report. After obtaining the demarcation, the plaintiffs had requested the defendants to vacate the suit land as they are absolute owners of the suit property, however, the defendants had failed to do so. The defendants threatened the plaintiffs to encroach upon the remaining portion of the land forcibly and illegally and also to change the character of the suit land.

3. As per the plaintiffs, the demarcation which was carried out by the revenue officer has become final as the defendants have failed to file any appeal against the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for vacant possession of the suit land and for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, changing the nature, character and raising construction over the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants are in possession 0-4 biswas area out of land measuring 5 bighas, 16 biswas comprised in Khasra No.360/1. The possession of the defendants is peaceful, continuous and adverse to the knowledge of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title, Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who were previous owners of the suit property. Shri Bhodu, predecessor-in-title of the defendants entered into possession of the suit property about 70 years ago and built a house over the same and he remained in possession of the suit property within the knowledge of Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who never raised objection.

5. It is further averred that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants have set up their own title over the suit property, denying the title of predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The defendants have raised double storied building on the suit property to which no objection was raised either by the plaintiff or their predecessor-in-title as they admitted the defendants to be owners-in-possession of the suit property. It has been further averred that the possession of the defendants is adverse, open and hostile to the knowledge of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title, therefore, they have acquired title to the suit property. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted by the defendants and sought the dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiffs filed the replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and all the averments made in plaint were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied.

7. Learned trial Court on 04.08.2015, framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possessi