RSA No. 2798 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2798 of 2008 Date of decision: November 18,2008 Deepa and another .. Appellants. Versus Satish Kumar and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. S.K.Gautam,Advocate for the Appellants. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property has been decreed . The plaintiffs instituted the present suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents with the averments that in the month of April, 1997, the defendants trespassed over a part of bara bearing khasra No.483 and raised construction over the said land without having any right or interest in the same. The defendants were asked to remove the construction and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land. The defendants did not vacate the disputed land, so this necessitated institution of the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants in their joint written statement resisted the suit taking various legal objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of the bara bearing Khasra No.483 but Hari Singh, grand- father of the plaintiffs had given some part of the bara to the defendants in the year 1959-60 in lieu of some land, which was given to him by the defendants and since then the defendants are in peaceful possession of the suit land and the RSA No. 2798 of 2008 2 possession of the defendants over the disputed land is also adverse since 1959- 60. Since the defendants are living in their pacca houses built on the suit land without any interference from any one so they have become owners of the disputed land by way of adverse possession and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the respective parties, the learned trial court, while dealing with issues No.1 and 2 simultaneously, arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are owners of the plot as mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint and the defendants have encroached upon the part of bara bearing khasra No.483 and findings under these issues were returned in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Since nothing was contended before the learned trial Court pertaining to issues No.5 to 9, so the findings under these issues were returned against the defendants. While dealing with issues No.3, 4 and 10 simultaneously, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the disputed property measuring 5 karam i.e., 27-1/2 feet in North; 6 karam i.e., 33 feet in South; 2 karam i.e., 11 feet in East and 3 karam i.e., 16-1/2 feet in West which is part of bara bearing Khasra No.483 and accordingly the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decrees of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants moved an application under Section 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement and by virtue of the proposed amendment, appellants intended to withdraw the stand taken by them that Hari Singh grand-father of the plaintiffs had given some part of the disputed land of bara bearing Khasra No.483 to the defendants in lieu of some land and also intended to allege that they had no knowledge about the demarcation dated 10.6.1998, which had been referred to by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The said application for amendment was rejected by the lower Appellate Court holding that the proposed amendment in the written statement would displace the plaintiff completely form admissions RSA No. 2798 of 2008 3 made by the defendants in the written statement. The appeal of the defendants was also found without any merit by the Additional District Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.2.2008 and was dismissed. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. I find no merit in this appeal. Admittedly the disputed bara bearing Khasra No.483 is owned by the plaintiffs whereas Bara No.486 and 357 are owned by the defendant-appellants and these baras are situated adjacent to plot bearing Khasra No.483. The controversy in the present case between the parties is that whether the defendants have encroached upon any portion of disputed plot bearing Khasra No.483 which is admittedly owned by the plaintiff- respondents. The fact that they are in possession over some area of the disputed bara has been admitted by the appellants by taking the stand that Hari Singh, grand-father of the plaintiffs had given some part of the bara to them in the year 1959-60 in lieu of some land which was given to him by the defendants in the same year. However, the appellants have failed to prove this plea of theirs' by leading any cogent evidence. Moreover, the courts below on appreciation of evidence and the report of Local Commissioner Exh.PW4/A has recorded a finding of fact that the appellants have encroached upon the suit property belonging to the plaintiff-respondents. The appellants are unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Thus no interference is warranted in the findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Dismissed. November 18, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE