RSA No.1395 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1395 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.4.2010 Sant Ram ..Appellant. Vs. Shree Ram and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is second appeal in a suit filed by him seeking declaration that he has become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. The trial Court decreed the suit which was reversed by the first Appellate Court. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on the ground that he is owner in possession of a plot measuring 7 marlas situated in Khewat No.673/634, Khatoni No.828, Rectangle and Killa No.46/13/6 total measuring 0 kanal 7 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Bhatgaon Dungran (Rattangarh), Tehsil and District Sonepat for over a period of 30 years on which he has constructed one room with pucca bricks and has carried out foundation work at different points. One of the issues involved in the suit was as to whether the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit by way of adverse possession. Learned first Appellate RSA No.1395 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - Court, while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court has held that even if the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, he does not even become the owner by way of adverse possession as a trespasser and encroacher can not claim title against the true owner. Besides the above finding, it is now well settled that plea of adverse possession can not be taken by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing a suit as the said plea is meant for the defendant. Thus, in my view, the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to cite any precedent contrary to the view taken by this Court. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal or any question of law much less substantial involved therein. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 5.4.2010 Judge Meenu