Regular Second Appeal No. 1092 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1092 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 *** Satpal .. Appellant VS. Kashmir Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of land measuring 13 marlas comprised in khasra No.122/3 according to jamabandi for the year 1996-97 as per oral exchange which was effected between their mother and the father of defendant, who in lieu of the aforesaid land was given land measuring 16 marlas comprised in khasra No.90. On the other hand, the defendant denied any oral exchange and pleaded that he become owner of the land comprised in khasra No.90 by way of adverse possession while land comprised in khasra No.122/3 is being used by him for tethering the cattles. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court disbelieved the plaintiffs to the extent of oral exchange and dismissed their suit for declaration in respect of land measuring 13 marlas comprised in khasra No.122/3, however, it partly decreed the suit by turning down the plea of adverse possession of the defendant over the land measuring 16 marlas comprised in khasra No.90 and directed him to deliver the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff within 60 days. Regular Second Appeal No. 1092 of 2010 2 The appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed, thereby affirming the findings of the learned trial Court, leading to the institution of the present regular second appeal. Heard. It is apparent that in order to substantiate the plea of becoming owner of the land measuring 16 marlas comprised in khasra No.90 by way of adverse possession, raised by the defendant, he failed to produce any evidence. Except his own bald and self serving statement, the defendant did not produce any other evidence. He even failed to prove as to on which date he came into possession of the land and in what capacity. The said land was found to be still in the name of the plaintiffs in the revenue record. In absence of any evidence to prove that his possession was either adverse to the plaintiff or their ancestors, the Courts below rightly turned down the said plea and directed the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the said land. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the instant regular second appeal. Finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 31,2011 Jiten