Possession–Decree of–Set aside by the First Appellate Court–High Court restored the findings of Trial Court–Appellant-State did not specifically deny the plaintiff’s ownership over the suit property–Instead, it primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession–Plaintiff no.1 derived the title through a regd. sale deed and mutation was sanctioned in his favour–Findings of First Appellate Court that plaintiffs are not the true owners, are based on conjecture and lack evidentiary support–Burden of proving was on the appellants as they pleaded adverse possession–First Appellate Court’s judgment is flawed for various reasons–High Court rightly reversed its findings.
