R.S.A No. 4287 of 2003 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4287 of 2003 Date of decision : July 29, 2009 Mala and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below accepting the claim of the appellants that they are in possession but dismissing their suit in so far as they had claimed that they had become owners by adverse possession. Counsel for the appellants has raised the following questions :- “ i) Whether the possession of the appellants on the suit property after a lapse of more than 30 years has ripen into ownership ? ii) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees to the extent of dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs is a R.S.A No. 4287 of 2003 ::2:: result of misreading of evidence ?” Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny that the plea of adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword. He, however, argues that this point was not taken before the Courts below nor has he been non-suited on this ground. Be that as it may, in my opinion, a suit on the basis of adverse possession is impermissible. In a similar matter bearing RSA No.998 of 2007, Gurtej Singh vs Zora Singh and others, decided on November 17, 2008, this Court held as follows :- “.......In the case of Bondar Singh and others (supra), no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the suit filed by a person claiming to be in adverse possession, yet it is to be seen from this judgment that no plea was raised at all on behalf of the owners that a suit for claiming title on the basis of adverse possession did not lie. This would be clear from the fact that in para 3 of the judgment in Bondar Singh and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- `3. The main question for consideration in the present suit is as to whether the plaintiffs were in hostile continuous possession of the suit lands by virtue of which they had perfected their title to the land by adverse possession. .....' Even in the case of Girja Kumar and others' case (supra), no plea was taken regarding the maintainability of the suit. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in R.S.A No. 4287 of 2003 ::3:: Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) does deal with this question to hold that such a suit is maintainable. I, however, find that the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh and others vs Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 considers the judgment of the Delhi High Court and, relying upon an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court [which was not referred to in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra)], distinguished the judgment in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) and held that such a suit is not maintainable. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Bhim Singh and others' case (supra) and consequently hold that the suit is not maintainable. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs.” Thus, question No.(i) has to be answered against the appellant. As regards question No.(ii), counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 29, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 4287 of 2003 ::4::