RSA No.2169 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2169 of 2006 Date of decision July 24, 2009 Jahid .....APPELLANT VERSUS Rattan Lal .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate Mr R.C.Chauhan, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction in respect of gair mumkin plot bearing Khewat No.1012, Khatoni No.1152, Rectangle No.93, Killa No.17/2/4(0-3), situated in the revenue estate of village Bisru, was decreed by the learned trial Court on 14.6.2005, which judgment and decree was upheld by the learned lower appellate Court on 14.2.2006 in the first appeal filed by the defendant-appellant, who is now before this Court in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff-respondent, he was owner in possession of the suit property, whereas the defendant-appellant was a stranger, having no right or interest in the same. Since the defendant threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land and despite requests he did not refrain from doing so, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for grant of permanent injunction. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he alongwith his two brothers was in possession of the suit land on which RSA No.2169 of 2006 -2- pucca shops and boundary wall up to the height of 10' were in existence. His possession was for the last more than 15 years. The same was hostile and un-interrupted and, therefore, he had acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession. The revenue record was not as per the spot and, accordingly, he had prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff had been able to establish his possession over the suit property by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He examined PW-1 Lallu Ram and himself as PW-2, besides relying upon certain documents. According to PW-1 Lallu Ram, the disputed land was owned by and in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendant had no concern with the same. The plaintiff, while appearing as his own witness, also reiterated his stand as taken earlier in the plaint. In Jamabandi Ex.P-1 the suit land measuring 0 kanal 3 Marlas was shown to be in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. To the same effect were the entries in Khasra Girdawaries Exs.P-2, P-3, and P-6 and Jamabandi Ex.P-5. On the other hand, the defendant had pleaded that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. In order to establish his plea of adverse possession, he was required to plead specifically as to when his possession had become adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected could be fixed. Even if he was able to show that he was in adverse possession, he was further required to establish that it was hostile and continued throughout. In his written statement, he did not mention anywhere as to since when he was in adverse possession of the suit RSA No.2169 of 2006 -3- land. His vague stand that he was in possession for the last 15 years would not help him in establishing his plea of adverse possession. The defendant had examined DW-1 Mohd. Ayyub, DW-2 Rashid Ahmad, besides examining himself as DW-3 and relying upon document Ex.D-1, but DW-1 Mohd. Ayyub did not turn up for his cross examination after tendering his affidavit as examination-in-chief. DW-2 Rashid Ahmad and DW-3 defendant himself had stated that the suit land was having two Khasra Nos. i.e. 4 and 5. In the affidavit Ex.DW2/A of DW-2 Rashid Ahmad as examination-in-chief, there was no mention about the adverse possession of the defendant. In his affidavit Ex.DW3/A, the defendant stated that the plaintiff had left the village about 25 years ago and had also orally sold the suit property to him. This evidence was found to be beyond pleadings and therefore, rightly discarded by the learned Courts below. An oral sale of immovable property cannot be believed as land of the value of more than Rs.100/- can only be sold by way of registered sale deed. Even if such a plea of oral sale of property by the plaintiff to defendant is considered, it runs contrary to the plea set up by the defendant in his written statement about his being in adverse possession over the suit property. The concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by the learned Courts below, are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. These findings cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. None of the substantial questions, as claimed by the defendant-appellant arises for determination in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) July 24, 2009 JUDGE Pds RSA No.2169 of 2006 -4-