As per case facts, Chaman Lal, the plaintiff, sought possession of land from his brother, Prem Singh @ Durga Dass, the defendant, after the defendant refused to vacate a house ... built on it, which Chaman Lal claimed was given for temporary use. Chaman Lal asserted his ownership through proprietary rights conferred by a Divisional Commissioner. The defendant countered, claiming ownership by adverse possession since constructing the house years ago, or by purchase. Both the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge ruled in favor of Chaman Lal, finding the defendant's possession permissive and denying his adverse possession claim. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the High Court, challenging these concurrent findings and the validity of Chaman Lal's proprietary rights, arguing he had perfected his title through adverse possession. The question arose whether the defendant successfully proved adverse possession and if his pleas of title and adverse possession were valid. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' concurrent findings that the defendant failed to establish adverse possession, as his possession was permissive and such pleas are mutually destructive. The High Court found no substantial question of law for interference.