Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 *** Ajmer Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Bhag Singh & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal by dint of which they are challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below while holding the plaintiffs as owners in possession of the suit property and also restrained them from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants and claimed that they are in possession of the suit property for the last more than 100 years since the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, who actually were the owners of the suit property, abandoned their rights in the same. It was their further case that their possession over the suit land is adverse and hostile to the knowledge of true owners and has matured into their ownership. The plaintiffs also laid challenge to the mutation of inheritance entered in respect of the suit land. The stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was of denial. It was their case that earlier their predecessor and now they are in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs never forcibly occupied the suit land. The plea of abandonment of suit land by their fore-fathers and now by defendants was denied. Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2008 2 The issues framed were adjudicated by the learned trial court and on the basis of evidence adduced on record, it was concluded that the suit land was abandoned by the actual owners with no intention to return. The revenue record which shows the ownership and possession earlier of predecessor in interest of plaintiff and after them that of plaintiffs and even their names started figuring in the revenue record as owners in possession while the defendants were shown as absentees, the learned trial court concluded that the predecessor in interest of defendants and now defendants left the village Laleana where the suit property situates and never looked back to see their property in the capacity as owners. Further the revenue record was found speaking of the fact that the forefathers of the plaintiffs were dealing with the land for the last about 100 years in the manner as if they were absolute owners thereof i.e. they mortgaged some part of the suit land and got it redeemed lateron; they also get this land partitioned and carried out the acts which can be undertaken by a person having clear title in the property. Thus, it has been held that the original owners of the suit land left it once for all and relinquished their rights therein and that the plaintiffs have cogently substantiated the plea of abandonment of the suit property by its owners by proving the necessary ingredients of “abandonment”. The revenue record entries never depicted of the plaintiffs having paid any rent in respect of the suit land to any person much less to the defendants. Thus, it was concluded that the possession of the plaintiffs and their forefathers for the last over 100 years is totally to the exclusion of the defendants or their predecessor in interest and if the original owners were to assert their right over the same they could have done it within a period of 12 years and since they slept over their rights, the possession of plaintiffs was adverse to their knowledge of the defendants for all intents and purposes and the overt acts done by the plaintiffs qua this land clearly undermined the ownership of the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants were restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, except in due course of law. Similar is the findings returned by the learned first Appellate court below, which also endorsed the findings of the learned trial court while dismissing the appeal of the defendants. The perusal of voluminous judgments passed by the Courts below leaves no to interfere with the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below. The Courts Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2008 3 below have well appreciated the law covering the issues involved in the suit. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 16,2009 Jiten