VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession has been ordered to be decreed.
(2.) SUIT for possession was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the plea that in pursuance to purchase the plaintiff-respondent has become owner of the property and therefore, he is entitled to possession of the property in possession of the defendant-appellants. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendants preliminary on the ground that he has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession and therefore, the suit for possession against them was not competent. Learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff being brother of the owner was licencee qua the property in dispute and furthermore that the defendants have failed to show their uninterrupted possession over the property so as to claim ownership by way of adverse possession.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the finding recorded by the learned courts below preliminary on the ground that they are in possession of the property since 1971 after their return from foreign country. It is the case of the appellants that as they had spent money and were put in possession of the property in the year 1979 as owners thereof their possession has to be treated as adverse since the year 1971 and thus, the learned courts below were wrong in coming to the conclusion that their possession did not mature into ownership by way of adverse possession.;