- (1.) The appellants-defendants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court, whereby the respondentplaintiff has been declared owner of the suit property, on the basis of the adverse possession. Mr. Amanjit Markan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants, in support of his grounds of appeal, has raised the following submissions:- 1. Suit for declaration claiming adverse possession in the absence of the specific pleadings in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Limitation Act was ex facie not maintainable. 2. In the absence of such plea, the plea of adverse possession, can be taken only as a defence by invoking the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 3. The alleged writing dated 20.02.1975 executed by Hardial Singh, attorney of Albel Singh, has not been proved except son of Scribe has been examined. The aforementioned writing cannot confer a title, in the absence of the registration. Even if, the said writing had to be looked into the plea of adverse possession would have been mutually destructive. 4. The Agreement dated 20.02.1975 (Ex.P-1) does not bear the signatures of Amarjit Singh. The aforementioned agreement has not been proved through the testimony of the attesting witnesses except the examination of the son of Scribe, namely, Piare Lal Saggar. 5. PW-2 in the cross-examination admitted that he has no document to prove the possession except Ex.P-1, whereas on the contrary the jamabandi Ex.D-1 shows the possession of Hardial Singh son of Albel Singh.
(2.) All these factors have not been noticed, much less, appreciated by the lower Appellate Court, thus, urges this Court to formulate the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the simpliciter suit for declaration, in the absence of the adverse possession, by relying upon the agreement dated 20.02.1975 without seeking specific performance, was maintainable or not 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court granting the injunction is in consonance with the statutory provisions of law 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court suffers from the illegality and perversity 4. Whether the suit claiming adverse possession in affirmative without therebeing any pleading in consonance of provisions of Section 27 of the aforementioned Act, is maintainable or not
(3.) Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Gurdeep Kaur, appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff submits, that the agreement was in respect of land measuring 4 marlas being adjoining to the land of the respondent-plaintiff. The witnesses of the defendants admitted the execution of the agreement, therefore, proving of the same pales into insignificance. The writing Ex.P-1 ex facie shows the possession had been handed over, it is, in these circumstances, adverse possession was claimed. The lower Appellate Court being the last Court of fact and law, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rendered a finding in a correct perspective, thus, urges this Court for affirming the findings, under challenge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.;