##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

114 RSA-3788-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision.:23.03.2026

Tarsem Lal and Another …..Appellants

Vs.

Parveen Kumar and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plain&ff- respondent for possession by way of par&&on along with consequen&al relief of permanent injunc&on has been decreed on 17.09.2018, and the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the learned First

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2023.

2. The case of the plain&ff, in brief, was that the suit land measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.198 Min., situated in village Bhoa, Tehsil and District Pathankot, is jointly owned by the plain&ff and defendants No.1 to 4 to the extent of 1/5th share each. It was pleaded that defendants No.5 and 6 (present appellants) were merely recorded in possession as Gair Dakhilkar without having any right, &tle or interest in the suit property and were threatening to interfere and raise construc&on thereupon. On this premise, the suit for possession by way of par&&on and

permanent injunc&on was ins&tuted.

3. Upon no&ce, the appellants contested the suit and set up a plea that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3788-2023 (O&M) -2-

possession, alleging long and con&nuous possession through their predecessor since the year 1950.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and par&es led their respec&ve evidence. The learned trial Court, on apprecia&on of the oral as well as documentary evidence including the revenue record, returned a categorical finding that the plain&ff and defendants No.1 to 4 are co-sharers in the suit property to the extent of 1/5th share each, whereas the present appellants have no ownership rights therein and are, at best, in permissive possession. The plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants was held to be not proved. Consequently, the suit was

decreed.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants preferred an appeal, which too came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, a@er re-apprecia&ng the en&re evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that the appellants had failed to establish the essen&al ingredients of adverse possession. It was further held that the findings recorded by the trial Court were based on proper apprecia&on of evidence and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Courts below have erred in not apprecia&ng the long possession of the appellants and in discarding their plea of adverse possession. However, the said

conten&on does not merit acceptance.

7. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below reveals that both the Courts have concurrently held, on the basis of the revenue record, that the ownership of the suit property vests with the plain&ff and defendants No.1 to 4, and that the appellants are not recorded as owners. The presump&on aDached to the revenue entries has not been rebuDed by

the appellants by leading any cogent evidence.

8. Further, the plea of adverse possession has been rightly rejected by both the Courts below. It is well seDled that mere long

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3788-2023 (O&M) -3-

possession does not cons&tute adverse possession unless it is shown to be open, con&nuous, hos&le and to the knowledge of the true owner. In the present case, the appellants have failed to establish the star&ng point of their alleged hos&le possession. Rather, the evidence on record, includ