RSA No.250 of 1981 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.250 of 1981 Date of decision : April 15, 2009 Gurdev Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Niranjan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal Advocate, Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. A.N. JINDAL, J. This is the second appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment dated 15-10-1980 passed by District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-1979 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents (herein referred as the respondents). The plaintiffs claimed possession of land measuring 3 karams x 10 karams marked as A.B.C.D. shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint being a part of the khasra No.54 (10 marlas) situated in the area of village Chahl, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur. On the basis of title, the defendants-appellants (herein referred as defendants) resisted the claim stating that the said area RSA No.250 of 1981 -2- is a part of their house adjoining the plaintiffs’ house and they had enclosed the same by constructing a wall about 45 years back and they have become owners by adverse possession. As many as six issues were framed by the trial Court, the issue of ownership was decided in favour of the plaintiffs whereas issue of adverse possession was decided against the defendants. The report submitted by Local Commissioner was accepted as lacking any defect. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. Arguments heard. Records perused. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is “whether the defendants have been able to establish adverse possession over an area of 1 kanal 31/2 marlas comprised of khasra No.54 situated in village Chahl, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur.” Counsel for the appellants have disputed the report of the Local Commissioner and argued that objections raised by the defendants were not decided by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. It was further argued that since the defendants have raised wall over the disputed plot for the last 45 years and they have become the owners by way of adverse possession, the ownership with regard to the khasra No.54 of the plaintiffs is not disputed at all. As regards the report of the Local Commissioner examined by the defendants themselves, it may be observed that he has stated that after taking all the required measurements and completing formalities, he found that the area in dispute was part of khasra No.54 which was not within the lal-lakeer and respondent No.6 did RSA No.250 of 1981 -3- not raise any objection to the said report. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court also concurrently held that the report given by the Local Commissioner is quite valid. As regards the arguments with regard to adverse possession, the appellants have failed to establish all the ingredients for constituting the adverse possession. No date, month and year of the encroachment has been pleaded or proved and it is also not establish that the said encroachment was hostile and to the knowledge of the defendants. No entry in the revenue records was found as to determine if the defendants were in hostile possession of the suit property. Therefore, the question of law as formulated, is answered against the appellants. For the foregoing reasons, appeal sans any merit. Hence dismissed. (A.N. JINDAL) April 15, 2009 JUDGE manju