R.S.A.No.2941 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2941 of 2008 Date of Decision : 04.09.2009 Rajender Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Jagdish and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the land measuring 5 Kanals, was dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged title over the suit property by way of oral gift and also in the alternative by adverse possession. The defendants denied any gift, but also asserted that the possession of the plaintiffs is that of a tenant since 1964. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove oral gift. Such finding has been recorded by appreciation of voluminous revenue records produced by the parties. Such finding was not even seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants in the second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that since the defendants have asserted the possession of the plaintiffs as that R.S.A.No.2941 of 2008 2 of a tenant, therefore, the Courts below could not have recorded a finding that the possession of the appellants is unauthorized. The said argument has been examined by the learned first Appellate Court and it has been recorded that though the defendants has asserted the possession of the plaintiffs is of a tenant, but there is no proof of any payment of rent at any point of time by the plaintiffs. Thus, it was held that the plaintiffs cannot be said to be tenant. Finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court is a finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence. Though the defendants have taken a stand that the plaintiffs are tenant, but the defendants have failed to prove such tenancy rights, as the plaintiffs have controverted such tenancy rights. Still further, since the plaintiffs have denied the tenancy rights, it may amount to forfeiture of tenancy rights as well. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 04.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE