(1.) THIS appeal was admitted on 18-2-1992 on the following substantial question of law:-
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for appellants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on following grounds :-
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the suit was rightly decreed by the Court below. Though the lands were exchanged between Ranchor Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, the predecessors of parties, but in absence of any document in this regard, the aforesaid plea could not be proved. But the fact remains that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. PC, took place between the parties and final order under Section 145 of Cr. PC, was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Exh. P-1) on 13-4-1970. Before this by order (Exh. P-2), dated 9-9-1969 the land in question was attached from the plaintiff and was given on Supurdgi. After the decision of Exh. P-1 on 13-4-1970 the lands were restored in possession of plaintiff on 11-5-1970. Since then aforesaid land remained in possession of plaintiff and in absence of any proceedings before any Competent Court for taking possession of the property from the plaintiff, the plaintiff acquired right, by way of adverse possession. The appellants ought to have taken steps for declaring of their right or for possession through process of the Court. After getting possession under section 145 of Cr. PC, respondent was entitled to retain possession until evicted therefrom in due process of law. The appellants under Articles 64 and 65 of the limitation Act were entitled to get the possession back within a period of 12 years. The possession of respondent was specifically adverse. The appellants on getting possession from Supurdgidar on 11-5-1970 as per Exh. P-4, after completion of period of 12 years, in absence of filing a suit for possession against the respondent, the rights of appellants in the land were extinguished and thus respondents acquired right. In this case, even in the light of the law laid down in s. M. Karim (supra), the respondent specifically denied title of appellants on 9-9-1969, when the order of attachment was passed by Sub Divisional Officer under Section 145 of Cr. PC, and on 19-9-1969, when the land was attached, thereafter on 11-5-1970 when possession of the land was restored to the respondent, the limitation started and in absence of any suit for possession within the period of 12 years, the rights of appellants were extinguished and respondents acquired right by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that lower Appellate Court rightly reversed the judgment of the Trial Court in which there is no error. This appeal is without merit and may be dismissed.