RSA No.582 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.582 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:27.11.2008 Banwari Lal ....appellant Versus Muni Ram & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Y.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of ejectment from the suit land has been decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the plot in dispute measuring 0 kanal 11 marlas comprised in khasra No.229 khewat No.119/113 khatauni No.155 vide jamabandi for the year 1995-96 situated at mauza chandwas and they were also in possession of the plot in dispute except 0 kanal 5 marlas as shown in the site plan of TAFAWAT. It was alleged that plaintiffs had got demarcated the plot in dispute on 11.12.1999 by the order of A.C.IInd Grade, Charkhi Dadri in which it was found that defendant had constructed his house on the portion measuring 0 kanal 5 marlas towards eastern side without any right on the said area. It was alleged that plaintiffs requested the defendant many times to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed plot, but he did not pay any heed on the request of the plaintiffs. Hence the present suit. RSA No.582 of 2008(O & M) 2 Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The defendant No.1 had filed his separate written statement controverting the allegations of the plaintiffs and took certain preliminary objections to the effect that plaintiffs have got no right to file the present suit, maintainability, suit is false and frivolous. On merits, it was stated that defendant purchased plot khasra No.230 min khewat No.218 khatauni No.289 vide jamabandi for the year 1995-96 measuring 0 kanal 15 marlas for consideration of Rs.1300/- from Ram Mehar son of Sunda, resident of Chandwas and to this effect, a writing on stamp paper was made on 14.08.2004 and defendant constructed his house and since then, he was owner in possession of that plot. Remaining averments of the plaint had been denied. After recording the evidence of the parties and perusing the case the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal. In the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court framed the following additional issues on 08.04.2005 and remanded the case back to the trial Court: 1.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 2.Whether the suit is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed?OPD The file was sent back to the trial Court for submission of report on the additional issues. Both the parties were directed to lead evidence. Parties completed their evidence on the above said issues. Learned trial Court vide order dated 01.05.2006 has submitted the report by way of judgment on the additional issues framed by the appellate Court on 08.04.2005. Both these issues are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs in view of the evidence led on RSA No.582 of 2008(O & M) 3 the record. Thereafter, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the present appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. In this case, the defendant-appellant has based his claim on the plea that he has become owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession as he has built a residential house over the suit land in the year 1984. However, both the Courts below have negatived his plea by recording a concurrent finding to the fact that he has failed to prove the adverse possession. It has been found by the Courts below that defendant has neither examined any mason nor examined any labourer who had constructed his residential house over the disputed land. The defendant has also failed to prove purchase of any building material in the year 1984 for the construction of residential house and mere oral testimony of DW4 was not sufficient to infer that he has constructed his residential house in the year 1984. It was also found by the Courts below that DW3, in his cross-examination has admitted that he has constructed his residential house in the year 1989. Thus, I find there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding of the fact recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.11.2008 neenu RSA No.582 of 2008(O & M) 4