RSA No.4912 of 2009 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4912 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 EIC. Haryana, Public Health, Panchkula and others ……Appellants Versus Ram Rattan …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Amit Goel, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Sumeet Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants (State of Haryana and its functionaries) are in second appeal, having lost in both the Courts below. Respondent-plaintiff-Ram Rattan filed suit against appellants for possession of suit land measuring 62 square yards being part of khasra No.142/20/2 (0-18) of which the plaintiff is owner, but defendants are in illegal possession thereof. Defendants claimed to be in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 40 years and, therefore, claimed to have become its owners by adverse possession. Various other pleas were also raised. RSA No.4912 of 2009 (O & M) - 2 - Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove that he is owner of the suit land. He has purchased oral as well as documentary evidence in this regard. Jamabandi Ex.P-7 for 1996-97 depicts that plaintiff is owner of khasra No.142/20/2 (0-18). Plaintiff has produced demarcation report to prove that suit land measuring 62 square yards is part of said khasra number. It is thus proved that plaintiff is owner of the suit land, but admittedly defendants are in possession thereof. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. Defendants pleaded to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession being in possession thereof for more than 40 years. However, defendants have not led even an iota of evidence on record to substantiate their aforesaid version. Consequently, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant second appeal. RSA No.4912 of 2009 (O & M) - 3 - For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is completely frivolous and meritless. The State should have avoided filing such appeal when the defendants very well knew that there is no evidence led by them to substantiate their version. Be that as it may, concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 19.04.2011 A.kaundal