Regular Second Appeal No. 4281 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4281 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 *** Het Ram Ex. Sarpanch .. Appellant VS. Smt. Surasti & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant was one of the defendants in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs along with respondents No.4 to 6 have been held owners of the suit property and the appellant and respondent No.7 who have been found to be in possession of the suit land, have been directed to hand over the vacant possession thereof to its owners. The plaintiffs claimed their ownership and possession over the suit land while the appellant and respondent No.7 staked their claim on the same by virtue of their adverse possession. But a perusal of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below reveal that the appellant and respondent No.7 utterly failed to substantiate their plea of adverse possession. No date, time or period was mentioned as to their coming into the possession of the suit land. Even they themselves failed to appear in the witness box in support of their said stand and finding none of the ingredient fulfilled by the appellant to prove his adverse possession, it has been held that mere continuous possession by a relative is not sufficient to prove adverse possession. It is apt to reproduce the findings returned by the learned first Appellate Court below while affirming that of the learned trial Court, Regular Second Appeal No. 4281 of 2008 2 returned in para No.10 of its judgment:- “10. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and case law cited by the counsel for the appellant and record of the lower court, impugned judgment and decree and after having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the file, I do not find any substance and force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, whereas I fully agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. The perusal of the file shows that the learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence led by the plaintiffs/ respondents has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land and the defendants No.1 and 2/ appellants have failed to prove that their possession has matured into adverse possession because the defendants No.1 and 2 appellants have not stepped into the witness box to prove their claim. The learned trial court has also rightly observed that the defendant No.1 and 2 while taking plea of adverse possession have indirectly admitted the previous ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit land because the plea of adverse possession can only be taken against true owner. The parties are admittedly close relatives, hence the learned trial court has rightly observed that the possession how so ever long does not matured into adverse possession. The suit of the plaintiffs is based upon the title so no period of limitation is prescribed for claiming possession of the suit land on the basis of title unless the title of the plaintiffs is defeated by the defendants by establishing their adverse possession. So the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the right to claim of the possession of the plaintiffs has been extinguished Regular Second Appeal No. 4281 of 2008 3 has no merit. So the learned trial court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs along with defendants No.3 to 5 are owners of the suit property and the defendants No.1 and 2 now appellants have failed to show that they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Hence the appeal has no merit and the appeal is dismissed.... “ From the above-said findings, it is abundantly clear that the Courts below while evaluating the material on record rightly directed the appellant and other to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 16,2009 Jiten