Regular Second Appeal No.2714 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.7.2010 Sukhwinder Singh son of Singara Singh ...Appellant Versus Brij Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that Brij Lal son of Mai Ram and others respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Singara Singh (since deceased), being represented by his legal representative Sukhvinder Singh appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendant”) for a decree of possession of the land in dispute on the basis of their ownership/title. 2. Concisely, the case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that they are owners, but the defendant, in the month of December, 2002, illegally and forcibly occupied the suit property. In the wake of demarcation on 19.11.2003 conducted in the presence of the defendant, the revenue officer found him in illegal and forcible possession of the suit land owned by the plaintiffs. The defendant was stated to have occupied the land in dispute without any basis. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession against the defendant in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit and locus standi of the plaintiffs. The ownership of the plaintiffs was denied. Regular Second Appeal No.2714 of 2010 2 However, it was claimed that the defendant is in continuous, peaceful, hostile and open possession of the land in dispute without any payment of rent/batai and his possession had matured into title by way of adverse possession. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleas. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit land to them within a period of one month, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.5.2010. 8. Still aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant-defendant filed the present appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and the possession of the defendant matured into title by way of adverse possession, so, the Courts below fell in grave error in decreeing their suit, is not devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 11. As is evident from the record, the plaintiffs have produced the copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 (Ex.PA) and khasra girdawari (Ex.PX), depicting their ownership of the suit land. On the contrary, the defendant has Regular Second Appeal No.2714 of 2010 3 miserably failed to prove his long possession. His un-authorised possession is clearly borne out from the demarcation report (Ex.PW2/A) prepared by Ravi Dutt (PW2). Moreover, the defendant has denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession is not available to him, in this relevant connection. Thus, it would be seen that the Courts below have rightly negatived the plea of adverse possession of the defendant. 12. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant-defendant, in this relevant behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 13. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs are proved to be owners and the defendant is in un-authorized and illegal possession of the disputed property. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 14. Meaning thereby, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned Regular Second Appeal No.2714 of 2010 4 judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 16. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.7.2010 Judge AS