IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Har Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Chand Singh ...Respondent Reserved on: 06.03.2026 Pronounced on: 07.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ajay Paul Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The plain/ffs are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The suit filed by the plain/ffs seeking a decree for possession of the suit land was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1994, and the appeal preferred by them was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 27.10.1998.

2. As per the case set up by the plain/ffs, they were owners in equal shares of the suit land measuring 15 Kanal 12 Marla, detailed in the head-note of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit property about six years prior to the filing of the suit without having any right or authority. Despite requests made by the plain/ffs to vacate the property, the defendant allegedly failed to do so, compelling the plain/ffs to ins/tute the suit seeking a decree for possession.

3. The defendant–respondent contested the suit by pleading that the suit property originally belonged to one Ghotu Singh and that he (defendant) had taken possession thereof on 15.08.1975. It was further pleaded that since the said date, his possession had remained open, hos/le, con/nuous and uninterrupted to the knowledge of the true owner. On the basis of such long and hos/le possession, the defendant claimed that his possession had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession and that the plain/ffs had no right or /tle in the suit property. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the par/es, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and, a@er apprecia/ng the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record, dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court, upon re-appraisal of the en/re material available on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal.

5. Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the defendant cannot be permiBed to claim ownership by way of adverse possession in view of the stand taken by him in earlier li/ga/on, wherein he had challenged the Will dated 09.11.1977 executed by Ghotu Singh and had sought joint possession. It is thus argued that the plea of adverse possession taken by the defendant in the present proceedings is inconsistent with his earlier stand and therefore cannot be accepted.

6. The aforesaid conten/on does not merit acceptance.

7. The Courts below have me/culously examined the record of earlier li/ga/on between the par/es. It has been no/ced that in February 1980, Ghotu Singh ins/tuted Civil Suit No.33 against Chand Singh, Major Singh and Balwinder Singh seeking possession of land measuring 20 Kanal, which included the present suit land measuring 15 Kanal 12 Marla. In the said suit, Ghotu Singh had categorically pleaded that although he was the owner of the land, Chand Singh had taken forcible possession thereof on 15.08.1975. Though the other defendants in that suit admiBed the claim of Ghotu Singh, Chand Singh contested the suit by asser/ng his possession over the property. Significantly, during the course of those proceedings, Ghotu Singh himself admiBed that Chand Singh had taken forcible possession of the property about four and a half years earlier and that such possession had never been delivered to him by way of par//on or otherwise. The said suit was ul/mately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.03.1981 (Ex.D14) with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of ac/on.

8. A@er the death of Gh