Adverse possession cannot be claimed based on mere long-term occupation; it requires specific evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner, supported by precise pleadings regarding the commencement of such hostility.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed in toto. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2023, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking relief of possession along with permanent injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, contending that the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below are vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, and misappreciation of the evidence on record.

2. The succinct facts, as pleaded by the plaintiff, are that the house in dispute was originally purchased by Baldev Singh s/o Mohinder Singh, a close relative of Sahib Singh (husband of the plaintiff), vide registered sale deed No. 2173 dated 15.10.1997 from Dinesh Kumar s/o Sewa Ram. Thereafter, Baldev Singh permitted Sahib Singh to occupy the said premises, pursuant whereto Sahib Singh resided therein and established his household. Subsequently, out of fraternal consideration, Sahib Singh allowed the defendant to occupy the first floor for residential purposes.

2.1. It is further averred that Sahib Singh, a retired Punjab Police official (retired on 31.10.2014), acquired certain movable and immovable assets, including a scooter and a shop. Upon his demise on 16.05.2019, and prior thereto, Baldev Singh had transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 26.08.2015. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to vacate the premises, unlawfully extended his possession to the entire house, and withheld both the scooter and, initially, the shop. Although the shop was later restored pursuant to criminal proceedings, the defendant continues in illegal occupation of the house and retains the scooter, accompanied by threats of damage and unlawful alienation, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit.

3. Upon due service of summons, the respondents entered appearance through learned counsel and contested the proceedings. Per contra, the defendant, in the written statement, sets up a plea of hostile title predicated on adverse possession, asserting continuous, open, and uninterrupted occupation of the suit property for a period exceeding twelve years. It is categorically denied that Sahib Singh ever resided in, or was in possession of, the property in dispute, or that any household articles therein belonged to him. The defendant further impugns the validity of the sale deed dated 26.08.2015, alleging the same to be a sham and collusive transaction, contending that possession was never delivered to the plaintiff and that he continues to remain in settled possession of the premises. All other averments contained in the plaint have been specifically traversed, and dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.

4. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings on record and a judicious consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the parties, Court deemed it expedient to delineate and crystallize the real questions in controversy. Accordingly, for the purpose of a structured and legally sound adjudication, the following issues were framed for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit house? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is owner of the Activa Scooter bearing R.C No. PB-23-R-5510? OPP

3. Whether the defendant is adverse possession of the suit