R.S.A.No.1824 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1824 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17.08.2009 Ashok Kumar ...Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Samalkha ...Respondents through its Secretary and another CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of land marked by letters ABCD, which is part of khasra No.328 situated at Railway Road, Samalkha, since the year 1950. Earlier his father was in possession and now he is continuing in possession of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession. Since the plaintiff is continuing in possession, therefore, he is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as well. In the written statement, it was pointed out that earlier the father of the plaintiff filed a civil suit for injunction, which was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 11.12.1995. R.S.A.No.1824 of 2009 2 Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 30.1.2002. Even the appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed on 29.11.2002. The first Appellate Court has also found that PW-4 Ram Lal has deposed that the Municipal Committee has raised shops at the spot forcibly with the help of Police and the factum of raising construction has also been deposed by DW-1 K.L.Malhotra, Secretary of the Municipal Committee as well. In view of the said fact, the Court dismissed the suit. The suit claiming title by virtue of adverse possession is not maintainable as held by this Court in Bhim Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others 2006(3) PLR 159. Even otherwise, the previous suits filed by the plaintiff and or by his father were not disclosed by the plaintiff. The said suits were dismissed. Though the suit of the father of the plaintiff was dismissed in default, but the suit filed by the plaintiff- appellant was dismissed on merits. Even the appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issues again. It has been found that it is the Municipal Committee, who has raised construction of the shops. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that DW-2 Ram Niwas, Kanungo, has admitted Khokha of the plaintiff exist over the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction and can be dispossessed only in accordance with law. A reading of the statement of the aforesaid witness would show that the plaintiff has put up his temporary khokha, which can be removed at any point of time. Such placement of khokha does not confer any legal R.S.A.No.1824 of 2009 3 possession in favour of the plaintiff, which may entitle him for any decree for permanent injunction. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 17.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE