RSA No.4721 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4721 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2011 Jangir Singh and others .....Appellants v. Murti Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 17.9.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Talwandi Sabo, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs for possession of land in dispute was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, case of present appellants-plaintiffs is that they are co-owners of the land in dispute and that respondent-defendant is having no right or interest in the property in dispute, Plea has been taken that earlier Civil Suit No.381 dated 21.11.2000 was filed by respondent- defendant on the plea that she has become owner of the land in dispute by way of afflux of time as adverse possession has matured into ownership. RSA No.4721 of 2011(O&M) -2- However, averment is that present appellants-plaintiffs filed written statement in the said suit alongwith counter-claim to the effect that entries in the revenue record are not correct and that in fact, they are in possession as owners. However, the said suit as well as counter-claim filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed in default vide order dated 6.2.2006. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by present appellants-plaintiffs claiming that they were forcibly dispossessed from the premises in dispute by respondent-defendant in the month of April 2006. The present suit was filed on 6.6.2006 for possession of the land in dispute on the basis of ownership. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant contested the suit inter alia, on the ground that plaintiffs no.1 to 4 and earlier their predecessor-in-interest remained co-owners of the suit land, and however, their ownership stood extinguished as respondent-defendant has been continuing in possession of the same and earlier her husband was in possession of the same and that the possession is hostile, open, continuous, un-interrupted to the knowledge of the true owners, i.e., the present appellants and hence, possession has matured into ownership. Specific plea has been taken that the possession is continuing since the year 1971 upto date, i.e., for the last more than 35 years without making any payment. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that even as per the revenue record, entries regarding possession RSA No.4721 of 2011(O&M) -3- of respondent-defendant is Gair Marusi Bila Lagan Bawaja Tabadla and hence, it is contended that respondent-defendant has failed to prove that she and earlier her husband had been continuing in adverse possession. It is also contended that adverse possession is to be proved by respondent- defendant, which she has failed to prove. However, law is well settled that plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. The present suit has been filed by appellants-plaintiffs for possession. Specific plea has been taken that earlier to April 2006, appellants-plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute as owners. However, there is no evidence to prove the said assertion except self serving statement of appellants-plaintiffs. Revenue record, i.e., entries in the jamabandies placed on record by both the parties, i.e., Ex.P1, Ex.P6 to Ex.P10, Ex.D2 to D7 and Ex.D13 as well as copies of khasra girdawaries for the crops of 1964-65 to 1972-1973 show that earlier Mukhtiar Singh, husband of defendant was in possession since Kharif 1971 and after his death respondent-defendant has been recorded as in possession. Though possession has been recorded as Gair Marusi Bila Lagan Bawaja Tabadla. However, it is not the case of either of the parties that there was any alleged exchange. There is no evidence of any alleged exchange. However, the fact remains that respondent-defendant is proved to be in possession without making payment of any rent since Kharif 1971. There is no evidence that plaintiffs were dispossessed in the month of April 2006 by the respondent. Hence, both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the land in dispute has been continuing in possession of the respondent- defendant and that earlier it was in possession of husband of respondent- RSA No.4721 of 2011(O&M) -4- defendant and that possession over land in dispute of respondent is continuous, open, uninterrupted and hostile. Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandies under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Appellants-plaintiffs failed to rebut the said presumption. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 8.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge