R.S.A No. 4063 of 2002 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4063 of 2002 Date of decision : December 23, 2008. Major Dass and another ...... Appellants. through Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate v. The Punjab State and others ...... Respondents through Mr.Ajaib Singh, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellants for a declaration that they have become owners in possession. Learned lower appellate Court has relied upon Kanak Ram and others vs Chanan Singh and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 213(P&H), and Bhim Singh and others vs. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97, wherein this Court held that plea of adverse possession is available only to a defendant and that a suit on the basis of adverse possession would not lie. R.S.A No. 4063 of 2002 ::2:: Learned counsel also drew my attention to two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and others vs Nihal Singh, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 222 and Girja Kumar and others v. State of H.P & another, 2007 AIR SCW 7353, and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Manmohan Service Station v. Mohd. Haroon Japanwala and others, AIR 1994 Delhi 337 to argue that the proposition of law, advanced by this Court, was not correct. In my opinion, this is not so. In the case of Bondar Singh and others (supra), no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the suit filed by a person claiming to be in adverse possession, yet it is to be seen from this judgment that no plea was raised at all on behalf of the owners that a suit for claiming title on the basis of adverse possession did not lie. This would be clear from the fact that in para 3 of the judgment in Bondar Singh and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “3. The main question for consideration in the present suit is as to whether the plaintiffs were in hostile continuous possession of the suit lands by virtue of which they had perfected their title to the land by adverse possession. .....” Even in the case of Girja Kumar and others' case (supra), no plea was taken regarding the maintainability of the suit. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) does deal with this question to hold that such a suit is maintainable. I, however, find that the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh and others vs Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 considers the judgment of the Delhi High Court and, relying upon an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court [which R.S.A No. 4063 of 2002 ::3:: was not referred to in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra)], distinguished the judgment in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) and held that such a suit is not maintainable. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Bhim Singh and others' case (supra) and consequently hold that the suit is not maintainable. As a matter of fact, this Court has already decided two appeals bearing RSA No.998 of 2007 and RSA No.3219 of 2008 on 17.11.2008, also holding that a suit on the basis of adverse possession does not lie. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 23 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'