R.S.A. No. 2252 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 6737-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 2252 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.11.2008 Jasbir Singh ...Appellant. Versus Jai Bhagwan Sharma and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Being unsuccessful before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala dated 7.8.2007 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, was dismissed. Sans unessentials, according to the plaintiff, the facts of the case are that in the year 1979, he purchased a plot situated at village Babyal and started residing there after constructing a house thereon in the year 1985. Subsequently, he started the business of milk dairy in the land adjoining to his house which was purchased by him and started tethering his cattle and storing fodder etc. in the adjoining vacant land. R.S.A. No. 2252 of 2008 -2- It was pleaded that as the business of the plaintiff was running good, he purchased buffaloes to develop his business at large scale and purchased the plot in dispute which was lying in front of his house, across the street, from one Ish Kumar for a consideration vide sale deed dated 23.4.1999. The area of the plot was seven marlas which was comprised in khasra Nos. 38//21/2 and 21/5/4 as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Mutation No. 8847 dated 26.11.1999 was also sanctioned on the basis of that sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that after the purchase, the plaintiff constructed a boundary wall and a shed for tethering his cattle, storing fodder etc., and was also using the same for preparing cow dung cakes and parking tractor etc. In alternative, the plaintiff also pleaded that he became owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and the defendants had no right, title or interest thereof. The defendants threatened to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and even the request of the plaintiff not to do so to the defendants failed to evoke any positive result and that gave rising to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. To controvert the stand of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. They had denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land either by purchase or by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 had rather purchased the suit land from Ish Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 16.7.1986 and defendant No.1 was the lawful general power of attorney of defendant No.2. The other R.S.A. No. 2252 of 2008 -3- averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced on record held that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit land and, therefore, was not entitled to permanent injunction. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which, vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this court in the regular second appeal. Both the courts had concurrently held that the plaintiff by taking a plea of adverse possession had admitted the ownership of the defendants over the suit land because the adverse possession is always claimed against the true owners. Moreover, in this case, the plaintiff had failed to identify the suit land. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the R.S.A. No. 2252 of 2008 -4- same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. There is a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate order is being passed in CM No. 6737-C of 2008 for condonation of 6 days' delay in filing the appeal and the same is disposed of as such. November 19, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE