RSA No.2759 of 1987 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2759 of 1987(O&M) Date of decision: 18.3.2010 Atma Singh ............Appellant Versus Chanchal Singh and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Avinash Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Salochana Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. --- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? ALOK SINGH, J. 1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant, as- sailing the judgment and decree dated 9.11.1985 passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and further judg- ment and decree dated 13.5.1987 passed by the learned first Appel- late Court/Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, confirming the findings re- corded by the learned trial Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per plaintiff-appel- lant, he was owner in possession of land in dispute measuring 8 ka- RSA No.2759 of 1987 (O&M) 2 nals, but defendants-respondents nos.1 to 3 took forcible possession thereof and claimed that they had got the land in exchange. The plaintiff-appellant challenged any such alleged exchange and claimed possession of the land from the defendants. 3. Defendants contested the suit and an objection was raised that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party; the alleged ownership of the plaintiff-appellant over the land was not ad- mitted; although Karam Singh was the owner of the property, how- ever, Babu was in adverse possession and has matured his title by adverse possession; Babu thereafter gave disputed property in ex- change to Hari Singh, father of the defendants-respondents nos.1 and 2; the suit is barred by limitation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party ? OPD 3. Relief.” 5. Learned trial Court has dismissed the suit having recorded finding that plaintiff failed to prove his title. Learned first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff concurring with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned first Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact that in the year 1954-55 in revenue record, Babu is shown to be in possession without payment of any Lagan and this entry remained RSA No.2759 of 1987 (O&M) 3 unchanged also in the year 1967-68 in the Jamabandi Ex. D2. In the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Ex. D2, ownership was shown to be of the appellant, however, possession was shown to be of the respondent - defendant. Khasra Girdawri Ex. D4 proves the entries in the Jamabandi. All these entries show that earlier Babu was in adverse possession without payment of Lagan and thereafter, defendants came into possession without payment of Lagan. 8. Both the Courts below returned concurrent finding of fact that previously Babu was in adverse/hostile possession and thereafter, defendants were in hostile possession and the plaintiff had never been in possession, hence, Babu had matured his tittle by adverse possession. 9. Above is a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed in present second appeal. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that findings are perverse cannot be accepted. It is settled position of law that this Court while exercising second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot disturb finding of fact recorded by Courts below in the absence of any substantial question of law. 10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Appeal is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 18th March, 2010 JUDGE ashish