As per case facts, plaintiffs claimed adverse possession over suit land since 1990, stating it was vacant and they cultivated it. Defendant No. 1, the true owner, sold the land ... to Defendants No. 2 and 3 in 2022. Plaintiffs sought declaration of title based on adverse possession, permanent injunction, and nullification of sale deeds. The trial court dismissed their suit. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the dismissal was unjustified and their adverse possession was established. The question arose whether the trial court was justified in holding that plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession and were not entitled to the claimed decree. Finally, the High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary ingredients of adverse possession, including the date of possession, its nature, and knowledge by the true owner, thus dismissing the appeal.