RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) BY way of the present Regular Second Appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.1980, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby an appeal, filed by the defendants/respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree, dated 22.7.1976, passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Bassi was set aside.
(2.) VIDE judgment, dated 8.12.2000, this appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, was set aside and the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, was restored. The respondents herein preferred Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide order dated 19.9.2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the judgment of this Court, restored the Regular Second Appeal, and remitted the matter to be decided afresh, after formulating necessary questions of law.
(3.) A perusal of the record, as also the impugned judgments, in my considered opinion, raise the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the judgment and decree, passed by the first appellate Court, are perverse for failure to notice the lack of pleadings and evidence in support of the plea of adverse possession ? (ii) Whether a defendant, raising a plea of possession, with the consent of the true owner, can put-forth a claim of ownership by adverse possession ? (iii) Whether mere long established possession, is sufficient to accept a plea of ownership by adverse possession ? A brief narrative of the factual matrix of the present case would be appropriate. The appellant herein filed a suit for possession, pleading that he was the sole surviving heir of one Ludan Singh son of Kabul Singh, who passed away issueless. Ludan Singh was owner of land, measuring 9 bighas 10 biswas, comprised in khasra No. 41, and Khewat/Khata No. 46/77, situated in village Khalas Pur Tehsil Sirhind, as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70. It was further pleaded that the defendants (respondents herein), had no right, title or interest, in the aforementioned property, but had manipulated the revenue record to reflect their names, as owners, 5 to 6 years ago.;