Evidence cannot be considered by the court in the absence of specific pleadings in the written statement; additionally, a claim of adverse possession constitutes an admission of the opposing party's ownership.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering in his peaceful possession and from cutting the Mango trees and from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him. The case as set up by the plaintiff-respondent in the plaint was that the plaintiff-respondent was residing in Village Mahilpur from the time of his forefathers and has landed property in Village Fagon, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. His father expired on 17.05.2004 and after his death the plaintiff-respondent came in possession as owner of whole of the property situated in Village Fagon. The father of the plaintiff-respondent prior to his death had entered into an agreement to sell on 09.04.1997 with defendant-appellant No.1. In the said agreement specific boundaries and dimensions were mentioned and was regarding the property situated in Khasra No.54, Khewat No.16/24 Village Fagon. After receiving the full and final consideration, the possession was delivered to defendant-appellant No.1 and since then defendant-appellant No.1 was in possession. After the death of the father of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellants tried to encroach upon the suit property. When the plaintiff-respondent tried to stop them, the defendant-appellants got into a verbal spat with the plaintiff-respondent. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent was still in possession of the suit property. It was also alleged that defendant-appellant No.2 along with some other persons had tried to cut and remove the mango trees. Hence, the suit.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant-appellants who appeared and filed written statement. Objections were filed stating that the site plan attached to the plaint is incorrect and not identical to the khasra numbers of the suit property as mentioned in the revenue record. On merits, inter alia, it was the stand taken that the plaintiff-respondent was not owner of whole of the property situated in Village Fagon and that defendant-appellant No.1 was the owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanal 2 Marla comprised in Khata No.15/23 Khasra No.193(4-0), 201(1-16) situated in Village Fagon as per the registered sale deed dated 09.04.1997. It was further the stand taken that the possession was delivered to him and the co-vendee, namely, Navjot Singh. It was further the case set up that they were in possession of the suit property adverse to the plaintiff-respondent and the rights of the plaintiff-respondent in the suit property stood extinguished by lapse of time. It was further the stand that the possession of defendant-appellant No.1 had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession.

4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court ? OPD

3. Whether the site plan filed by the plaintiff is incorrect ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not ma