IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :14.01.2026 RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS KUNDAN SINGH ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate and Mr. Vishesh Dhaka, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The plaintiffs-appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1990 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura, as well as the judgment and decree dated 03.01.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala, whereby the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed and the first appeal preferred was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff-appellants sought possession of the suit property, as fully described in the plaint, on the ground that they are the owners thereof and that the defendants had taken illegal possession of the same about three years prior to the filing of the suit and were, therefore, liable to be evicted.

3. The defendants contested the suit by challenging the ownership of the plaintiffs and asserted that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property.

The defendants further set up a plea of ownership by way of adverse possession against the original owner, claiming to be in peaceful, continuous, open, and hostile possession of the suit property for more than twelve years.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD.

4. Relief.”

5. After considering the evidence led by the parties, Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiffs, holding that they failed to prove that they are the owners in possession of the suit property. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the defendants, holding that they had acquired ownership by way of adverse possession.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

(i) P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma and Ors., 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 847;

(ii) T. Anjanappa and Ors. Vs. Somalingappa and Anr., 2007(1)

R.C.R. (Civil) 19;

(iii) M. Radheshyamlal Vs. V. Sandhya and Anr. Et, 2024(2)

R.C.R. (Civil) 351;

(iv) Narasamma & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through Lrs.

2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 4178.

7. On consideration, I find that so far as the principles of law laid down in the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, there is no dispute that in a case where adverse possession is pleaded, it is mandatory for the person claiming adverse possession to admit the ownership of the person against whom such adverse possession is claimed. However, in the present case, the respondent has not claimed adverse possession against the plaintiffs-appellants, rather, the respondent has asserted that the plaintiffs- appellants are not the owners of the suit property and has claimed adverse possession against the true owner. Therefore, none of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants has any bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants has argued that the learned Courts below has erred in not properly appreciating the revenue record, particularly the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 (Ex. P-3), wherein the plaintiff- appellants have been recorded as owners in possession of the suit property. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1982, passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, whereby the plaintiffs-appellants were held to be owners in possession.

9. The principal issue in the present case is whether the plaintiffs- appellants have succee