R.S.A. No.2156 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2156 of 2008 Date of Decision:23.10.2008 Amar Kaur and others .....Appellants Vs. Amrik Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate and Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate for the appellants. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 21.4.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 29.1.2007 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby she dismissed the suit with costs. The facts giving rise to the suit are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit house which was purchased by him from Aasa Singh son of Sardara Singh vide sale deed dated 2.5.1967. His possession over the house shown in the site plan is continuous, uninterrupted, open and hostile for the last about 29 years, which has ripen into ownership and in this way he has become the exclusive owner of the same. He along with the members of his family is residing in this house with which the defendant has no concern. There is no intervening wall between the two houses. The defendant is threatening to interfere in his possession and to dispossess him from the suit property forcibly and illegally. On these allegations, this suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from R.S.A. No.2156 of 2008 -2- interfering in his possession or taking forcible possession of the property in dispute and also for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the house in dispute by way of adverse possession. The defendant in his written statement has put forth that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit property and that in fact the answering defendant along with other co-owners are in possession of the said portion/ house. As alleged, the plaintiff is in possession only of portion of the land which has been purchased by him. Besides that portion of the land, he has no concern with the suit property. The plaintiff is not residing in the portion as shown in yellow colour in the site plan, rather he is residing in the portion which has been sold to him. Denying other facts, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining R.S.A. No.2156 of 2008 -3- the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went up in appeal which was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants maintained that in view of the report of the Local Commissioner dated 14.6.1997, the possession of the plaintiff- appellant was proved on the site in dispute. The learned trial Court did agree that the report of the Local Commissioner was in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the respondent in his cross-examination had also admitted that he was not in possession of any documentary evidence to prove his possession but despite that the plaintiff- appellant was non-suited by both the Courts below. I have well considered these submissions. As is borne out from the judgments recorded by both the Courts below Ex.P.2 dated 14.6.1997, the report of the Local Commissioner was exhibited even without examining the Local Commissioner Parminder Kaur Arora, thus, the defendant- respondent was deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine the Local Commissioner. The appellant has claimed adverse possession over the property in dispute. The learned trial Court in paragraph No.14 of the judgment has observed that “in his (referring to the plaintiff) further cross-examination, he has further deposed that he has occupied the land of the defendant with his permission, so in view of the deposition aforesaid made by the plaintiff during his cross-examination, the case of the plaintiff regarding his adverse possession over the house as shown yellow in Ex.P.1 proves to be a falsified version.” It is apparent on the face of these R.S.A. No.2156 of 2008 -4- observations that the plaintiff was in permissive possession. If it was so, the same could not be controverted into adverse one. On careful delving into the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, it transpires that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and thus are not liable to be disturbed. This apart, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in this appeal. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed. October 23, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No