Gurpreet Singh & Ors. v. Nagar Council, Sunam

shall hereina7er be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

4. The subject ma9er of the dispute pertains to land measuring 41 Kanal 3 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Sunam, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

5.1 Plain(cid:6)ff’s Case : As per the case set up by the plain*ffs, their pre- decessor-in-interest, namely Baljit Singh, had taken forcible possession of the suit land on 13.04.1968, at a *me when the land was owned by Gram Pan- chayat Moranwali. Subsequently, upon inclusion of the area within municipal limits, the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist, and all its rights, *tle, and interest in the suit land stood vested in the defendant (respondent herein) Nagar Council, Sunam.

5.2 Baljit Singh is stated to have remained in possession of the suit land *ll his death in October, 1980. Therea7er, the plain*ffs, being his widow and sons, claim to have con*nued in uninterrupted possession of the suit prop- erty. It is their specific case that neither Baljit Singh nor the plain*ffs ever paid any rent, lease amount, or ‘chakota’ to the defendant or its predecessor. The plain*ffs assert that their possession, as well as that of their predecessor, has been actual, open, con*nuous, uninterrupted, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby fulfilling all the necessary ingredients of adverse pos- session. On this premise, it is claimed that the plain*ffs have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

5.3 It is further averred that the defendant, taking advantage of its re- corded ownership in the revenue records, has been a9emp*ng to transfer the suit property and to dispossess the plain*ffs by use of force. Despite requests NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2068-2003 (O&M) made by the plain*ffs to recognize their rights, the defendant failed to accede, compelling the plain*ffs to ins*tute the present suit seeking a declara*on of ownership by way of adverse possession, along with a decree of permanent in- junc*on restraining the defendant from aliena*ng the suit property or interfer- ing with their possession.

6. Defendant’s Stand : Contes*ng the suit, the defendant though ad- mi9ed that the plain*ffs were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property as reflected in the revenue record, but specifically denied that the plain*ffs had acquired ownership by adverse possession. Several preliminary objec*ons were also raised, including want of statutory no*ce, lack of locus standi, estoppel, and concealment of material facts, besides the plea that the suit was frivolous and ins*tuted only to harass the defendant.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the par*es, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both par*es led their respec*ve evidence in support of their claims, which was taken on record.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the par*es, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Both sides led their respec*ve evidence, which was duly taken on record.

9.1 Findings of the Courts below: Upon apprecia*on of the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plain*ffs had failed to establish their plea of con*nuous possession over the suit property since

13.04.1968, as asserted in the plaint. It was no*ced that the entries in the Jamabandi reflected the possession of the plain*ffs only from the year 1974–75 onwards, and no documentary evidence or revenue record prior thereto had been produced to substan*ate their claim of earlier possession.

9.2 The trial Court further held that, in respect of property belonging to the Government or a statutory authority, a period of 30 years is required to perfect *tle by way of adverse possession. In the present case, the suit had been ins*tuted in May, 2001 and, even if the plain*ffs’ possession was taken NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2068-2003 (O&M) from the year 1974–75, the requisite statutory period of 30 years had not elapsed. Consequently, the plain*ffs were held not to have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

9.3 It was also observed that the possession of the plain*ffs, as reflec- ted in the revenue record, was illegal and unauthorized in nature, and such pos- session could not be granted protec*on in law. On these findings, the suit filed by the plain*ffs was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002.

10. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plain*ffs pre- ferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in toto, and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002.

11.1 Conten(cid:6)ons of the Appellants – Plain(cid:6)ffs : Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants–plain*ffs contended that the said findings suffer from patent illegality and perversity. It was argued that both the Courts below have erred in disbelieving the case of the plain*ffs regarding their possession over the suit property since April, 1968, i.e., from the *me their predecessor Baljit Singh allegedly took forcible possession thereof.

11.2 In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel invited the a9en*on of this Court to the legal no*ce (Ex.P1) issued by the plain*ffs to the defendant–Nagar Council, Sunam under Sec*on 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, wherein it was specifically asserted that the plain*ffs, and prior thereto their predecessor Baljit Singh, had been in possession of the suit property since

13.04.1968. It was further asserted therein that such possession was actual, ex- clusive, con*nuous, open, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby cons*tu*ng adverse possession under colour of *tle. Learned counsel then referred to the reply dated 02.05.2001 (Ex.P2) sent by the defendant, wherein the possession of the plain*ffs, and earlier of Baljit Singh, was admit- ted. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

11.3 It was contended that there was no specific denial of the plain*ffs’ asser*on regarding the commencement of possession from 13.04.1968. Reli- ance was also placed upon the pleadings of the par*es to contend that, al- though possession was admi9ed in the wri9en statement, the specific date of commencement of possession, as pleaded by the plain*ffs, was not expressly denied. On this premise, learned senior counsel argued that the plain*ffs had successfully established con*nuous possession for a period exceeding 30 years prior to the ins*tu*on of the suit in May, 2001, and thus their possession had ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession.

11.4 In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon “Par- kash Kaur and others vs. Joginder Singh and others” 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 145, to contend that admi9ed facts need not be proved and that admission cons*tutes the best evidence. Further reliance was placed upon “M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by LRs vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others” (2007) 6 SCC 401, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an averment not specifically denied in the wri9en statement is deemed to have been admi9ed, and in view of Sec*on 58 of the Evidence Act, such admi9ed facts need not be proved. Reli- ance was also placed upon “Surjit Singh (since deceased) vs. Mahinder Singh and others” 2025 NCPHHC 148250, to contend that long, open, and hos*le pos- session matures into ownership.

12.1 Conten(cid:6)ons of the Respondent - Defendant : Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–Municipal Council, Sunam contended that although the defendant had admi9ed the possession of the plain*ffs over the suit property, there was no admission whatsoever that such possession commenced from April, 1968.

12.2 It was further argued that the suit property was originally owned by Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, and it was only during the year 1997–98 that the ownership stood transferred to the defendant–Municipal Council, Sunam. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Jamabandi for the year 1994–95 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2068-2003 (O&M) (Ex.D1), which reflects muta*on No.8781 recording the change of ownership in favour of the defendant.

12.3 Learned counsel further submi9ed that the revenue record pro- duced by the plain*ffs themselves commences only from the year 1974–75, which shows the ownership of Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali and possession of Baljit Singh. It was highlighted that no documentary evidence prior to 1974–75 had been produced, and even as per the plain*ffs’ own applica*on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, no such record was available.

12.4 The tes*mony of the plain*ffs’ witnesses was also assailed on the ground that two of them had no personal knowledge of the alleged ini*al pos- session, while the third witness merely stated that the plain*ffs had been in possession for about 30 years.

12.5 It was further pointed out that the nature of the land, as reflected in the revenue record, was partly ‘Chahi’ and partly ‘Gair Mumkin’, and in sub- sequent records, a por*on of the suit land con*nued to be described as ‘Gair Mumkin’.

12.6 A9en*on was also drawn to addi*onal evidence sought to be placed on record by the defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, including Khasra Girdawari entries from 2005 to 2021, which depict the land as ‘Gair Mumkin’, with part of it being used as a pond. Reference was made to the re- port of the Naib Tehsildar (Ex.A4), indica*ng that the land was being used for disposal of garbage and dirty water by the Municipal Council. Photographs an- nexed with the applica*on were also relied upon to substan*ate this posi*on. Despite no*ce, no reply to the applica*on for addi*onal evidence was filed by the appellants.

12.7 It was further argued that in the case of vacant or ‘Gair Mumkin’ land, possession follows *tle, and therefore, the defendant being the recorded owner, is presumed to be in possession. It was also contended that the con*n- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2068-2003 (O&M) ued recording of Baljit Singh’s possession in revenue records even a7er his death in 1980 renders such entries unreliable and devoid of eviden*ary value.

12.8 Learned senior counsel further argued that the plea of adverse possession is required to be strictly proved and cannot be presumed. In this re- gard, reliance was placed upon “Ravinder Kumar Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur”