JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Defendant Raj Kanwar Singh Dhillon has filed the instant second appeal after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Respondent Akager Singh filed suit for possession of the suit property against the appellant alleging that respondent-plaintiff is owner thereof. The plaintiff is non-resident Indian (NRI). On defendant’s request, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to live in one room of the suit house as licensee for some period. However, taking advantage of plaintiff’s absence from the country, the defendant illegally occupied the whole house. On demand, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property. 3. The defendant inter alia pleaded that the defendant and his family members were given the suit property in lieu of services rendered by them to the plaintiff. The defendant and his family were given option to develop the suit property and to raise construction. They spent a lot of money on new construction and got installed hand pump and electricity fittings. Property was not to be taken back from them. Defendant also pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property for more than 15 years and have become its owners by adverse possession. Relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties was controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. The defendant, vide his pleadings in the written statement, has not disputed that plaintiff was owner of the suit property. However, the defendant has taken contradictory stand to justify his possession and to perpetuate the same. On the one hand, the defendant has stated that the suit house was given to them in lieu of services rendered by them to the plaintiff, whereas on the other hand, the defendant has pleaded that they are in adverse possession of the suit property and have become owners by way of adverse possession. These are contradictory pleas, which are destructive of each other. These are contradictory pleas, which are destructive of each other. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that defendant has become owner of suit by way of adverse possession cannot be accepted, when according to defendant’s own pleadings, the defendant’s possession was permissive. However, the defendant has failed to prove even his plea that the house was given to him in lieu of services rendered by him and his family to the plaintiff. The defendant has not even pleaded as to what type of services were rendered by him and his family towards the plaintiff. Moreover, gift of the house to the defendant could be made only by registered gift deed, but admittedly no registered gift deed or any type of other registered conveyance deed was ever executed in favour of the defendant. The defendant’s evidence is also not sufficient to prove that he is in possession of suit property for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit, much less to prove that his possession was adverse for the requisite period. The defendant admitted that electricity fittings were got installed in the disputed house by him in the year 2004. This admission supports the plaintiff’s version that defendant illegally occupied the house sometime between October 2003, when one room in the house was given to the defendant as licensee and August 2005, when plaintiff visited the village and found the defendant to have illegally occupied the entire house. The fact that electricity fitting was got done in the year 2004 would depict that the defendant was not in possession of the suit house for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit, which was instituted on 07.02.2006. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that defendant has failed to prove his adverse possession for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of merit and is result of greed and dishonesty of the defendant, who wants to usurp the house of the plaintiff, who happens to be NRI. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of merit and is result of greed and dishonesty of the defendant, who wants to usurp the house of the plaintiff, who happens to be NRI. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. -------------