In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No.2242 of 1980 Date of decision: March 20, 2009 The Faridabad Complex Administration ... Appellant vs. Bhika Ram and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parshant Vashisht, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is “whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is based on misreading of evidence?” The respondent-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they had become the owner of the suit land on the basis of an agreement dated 18.3.1962 for a consideration of Rs.491-50. The said agreement was executed by Gram Panchayat in pursuance of the resolution dated 31.10.1961 and thereafter, the plaintiff-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') constructed house and now they are living peacefully in the said house without any interruption and in the full knowledge of the appellant-defendant. Therefore, in the alternative they have claimed adverse possession over the demised premises. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Balabhgarh vide its judgment dated 26.11.1979. The plaintiff-respondents filed appeal against the order dated 26.11.1979 which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide its judgment dated 17.5.1980, against which the second appeal has been preferred. Admittedly, the plaintiffs came in possession of the plot since 1961-62 under an agreement and the present suit was preferred in the year 1977. During this period of stay of the plaintiff over the plot, he had constructed house and he was living therein and he was neither disturbed by R.S.A. No.2242 of 1980 -2- *** the Gram Panchayat nor by the appellants Faridabad Complex Administration. Kishan Chand plaintiff has categorically disclosed that he has been in possession of the plot as owner on the basis of the agreement Ex.P8. This agreement Ex.P8 was never rescinded or withdrawn and the plaintiff was never refunded the money. The trial court while relying upon three judgments i.e. Dagadu Dhandu Patil vs. Tarkadu Moti Ram Patil, AIR 1957 Bombay, 79; Shri Bhagwan Singh and others vs. Ram Basi Kaur and others AIR 1957 Patna 157; and State of West Bengal vs. Dalhausie Institute Society AIR 1970 SC 1978 observed that adverse possession could be held over the property on the basis of the invalid grant by the Government for more than statutory period. The plaintiffs having been in possession since 1961-62 after constructing house over the plot now cannot be turned out merely on the ground that the agreement so executed by the Gram Panchayat conferring right of ownership over the plaintiff were invalid for want of registration. Any way, the plaintiff by virtue of strength of his hostile possession for a particular date and to the knowledge of appellants could claim ownership on the basis of the adverse possession also. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. March 20, 1980 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge