AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-18.03.2026 Uploaded on:-18.03.2026 Tarsem Singh and Others … Appellants Versus Sohan Singh (Deceased) through His LRs and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Charanjit, Advocate, Mr. Samridham Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Anhad Batta, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2003 rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur was set aside.

2. In a concise narration of facts, the respondents–plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession of the suit land measuring 23 kanals 03 marlas, fully detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded that although the Jamabandi entries depicted the appellants–

defendants to be in possession as mortgagees, the said entries were erroneous. Taking advantage of these incorrect entries and in the absence of the respondents–plaintiffs, the appellants–defendants allegedly took forcible possession of the suit land approximately one year prior to the institution of the suit and thereafter refused to restore possession, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit.

3. The appellants–defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, asserting that they had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land since the year 1962–63. It was further pleaded that their possession had been open, continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile to the true owners, and that by virtue of such long and adverse possession they had perfected their title over the suit property.

4. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the documents placed on record, and the rival submissions advanced, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication so as to facilitate a proper and effective determination of the controversy between the parties:–

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property?

OPP?

2. Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection no. 2 taken in the written statement? OPD

5. Relief

5. The parties were afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective stands. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, holding that the possession of the appellants–defendants had ripened into ownership, as they were proved to have remained in possession of the suit property for a period exceeding twelve years.

5.1. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents–plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents–plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate Court, inter alia, held that the appellants– defendants had neither specifically pleaded nor proved the precise date on which they allegedly entered into possession, nor had they established that their possession was adverse to the true owners of the suit property.

6. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred. The same was admitted for hearing on

04.04.2007.

7. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under S