R.S.A.No.3660 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3660 of 2008 Date of Decision : 14.07.2009 Malkiat Singh ...Appellant Versus Gurcharan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession of Ghair Mumkin plot measuring 3 marlas situated at Village Sihar, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana, on the basis of title, was decreed. The plaintiffs have sought possession of the suit land on the basis of their title. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs but also asserted that they have become owner by way of adverse possession. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The ownership of the plaintiffs was found to be proved primarily on the basis of oral evidence and also the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ex.P-5. The Court has taken into consideration the statement of Dharam Singh (DW-1) which is to the effect that defendants were earlier living in ancestral house in Village Abadi and thereafter shifted in the present house after selling the ancestral property. It has been also found that as per the revenue record, the plaintiffs are owner of R.S.A.No.3660 of 2008 2 khasra No.717/1/1/2 and the defendants have asserted to be in possession of the aforesaid khasra number in adverse possession. Therefore, the Court decreed the suit. Said deceee has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that jamabandi is not a document title and in the absence of any documentary proof, the finding of ownership of the plaintiff recorded by the Courts below, is not sustainable. It is argued that even the correctness of jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ex.P-5 stands rebutted by the testimony led by the defendants and that plea of adverse possession was an alternative plea, which cannot be taken into consideration to return a finding that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit land. The entries in jamabandi are not documents of title is beyond dispute. However, in the absence of any other document of title, the entries in jamabandi are relevant to determine the ownership of a person in possession. The parties have led evidence in respect of their respective title. The defendants have raised a plea of adverse possession may be as alternative plea. But the plea of adverse possession by necessary implication admits that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land and the defendants are in hostile possession thereof. The said plea of the defendants is sufficient to support the finding recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiffs are proved to be owner of the suit land. Both the Courts have considered the entire evidence to return a finding of fact regarding ownership of the plaintiff and that the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit property. Said finding is sought to be disputed by the appellant by R.S.A.No.3660 of 2008 3 seeking reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Such reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 14.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE