IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4694 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.1.2010 Kanwaljit Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Rakesh Chander Nanda and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.14111-C of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4694 of 2009 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession or dispossessing him illegally or forcibly from the land in dispute and further for declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of adverse possession, has been dismissed. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the revenue record does not support the plea of adverse possession put forth by the plaintiff. Even otherwise in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others 2006 (3) RCR Civil 97, this Court has authoritatively laid down that a suit seeking declaration on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable. The aforesaid plea of adverse possession can only be available as a defence to the defendants. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed by this Court in RSA No.3909 of 2009 (State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar), decided on 17.3.2009 . RSA No.4694 of 2009 (O&M) -2- It may also be noticed that by taking the plea of adverse possession, the appellant has in fact admitted the ownership of the respondents. This Court has authoritatively laid down in RSA No.3800 of 2004 (Sukhwant Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer and another), decided on 2.4.2009 that no injunction can be granted against a true owner. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. January 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE