- (1.) The present two appeals being RSA No.841 and RSA No.842 of 2006 have been filed by Harbhajan Singh, appellant. Two appeals arise out of two separate suits. One suit was filed by the present respondents Dilbagh Singh and others for permanent injunction. It was claimed by the aforesaid plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit land and their possession has been adverse and hostile for a period of 50 years and as such they are owners of the suit land and that defendant Harbhajan Singh was trying to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land. Consequently, they claimed an injunction against the aforesaid defendant Harbhajan Singh.
(2.) The second suit was filed by Harbhajan Singh for permanent injunction. He claimed that he had purchased the property in question vide an agreement to sell dated April 9, 2002 from one Parsan Kaur and got the possession thereof also. He denied that Dilbagh Singh etc. were in possession of the suit property. Harbhajan Singh claimed that he had paid entire sale consideration to Parsan Kaur and had come into possession as owner of the property.
(3.) The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by Dilbagh Singh and others. They were held to be in possession of the suit property. However, their claim that they had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession was rejected. Consequently, the suit was decreed to the limited extent that they shall not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law.;