Regular Second Appeal No.558 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 11, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.558 of 2011 (O & M ) Gurdwara Shri Nanaksar Sahib and another ….Appellants Versus Kewal Krishan and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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? Present: Mr. Randeep Singh Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents praying for decree of possession coupled with decree of permanent injunction with respect to the property described in the head-note of the plaint has been decreed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments. Regular Second Appeal No.558 of 2011 (O & M ) The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence, held that the plaintiffs-respondents, being successors-in-interest of Jumma Ram alias Ainshi Ram, who had been allotted the property in dispute for an amount of Rs.5200/- in lieu of the property left by him (Jumma Ram ) in Pakistan during partition, were entitled to recover possession of the said property from the defendants-appellants and they (defendants-appellants) were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiffs. The appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Jumma Ram, successor-in-interest of the plaintiffs- respondents, during partition, was displaced from Pakistan. He migrated to India. In lieu of the property left by Jumma Ram in Pakistan, the Government of India through the Ministry of Rehabilitation, allotted tenaments Nos. 149 to 156 (the property in dispute) consisting of quarters and open space to Jumma Ram for an amount of Rs.5200/-. The allotment was made to Jumma Ram through legal and valid auction conducted on 22.5.1958. Out of the total amount of Rs.5200/-, an amount of Rs.5066/- was adjusted towards compensation given by the Government of India to Jumma Ram for the property left by him in Pakistan. The remaining amount of Rs.134/- was paid in case by Jumma Ram to the Government of India. The entire auction amount was, thus, paid by Jumma Ram under the said auction and he became owner in possession of the suit property. The allotment of the suit property was made in favour of Jumma Ram by the Government of India through Ministry of Rehabilitation. Jumma Ram remained in possession of the suit property till his death, which took Regular Second Appeal No.558 of 2011 (O & M ) place in the year 1977. Upon the death of Jumma Ram, the property in dispute devolved upon his legal heirs and the plaintiffs-respondents are some of the legal heirs of Jumma Ram. The defendants-appellants forcibly took possession of the suit property. Exhibit P.2 on record is the intimation sent to Jumma Ram qua the auction of the suit property. Vide Exhibit P.3 the bid of Jumma Ram with regard to the suit property was accepted by the competent authority. Exhibit P.4 is the receipt showing the deposit of Rs.134/- by Jumma Ram on account of the balance purchase price after adjusting the compensation amount of Rs.5066/-, the bid amount being Rs.5200/-. Exhibit P.5 is the certificate of payment of compensation to Jumma Ram in lieu of the property left by him in Pakistan. In Exhibit P.5, there is reference to the purchase of the suit property by Jumma Ram in lieu of Rs.5066/- as his compensation and the rehabilitation granted in favour of Jumma Ram was also referred to therein (Exhibit P.5). The defendants-appellants could not produce even an iota of evidence on record to show as to how they came into possession of the suit property. In view of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs-respondents on record, which has been discussed above, the possession of the defendants-appellants over the suit property is clearly that of a trespasser. It is well-settled that possession of a trespasser over a property, howsoever long it may be, cannot ripen into ownership. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, could not persuade me, by referring to any material on record showing that the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by both the Courts below. The plaintiffs-respondents are bound to succeed, their suit being based on Regular Second Appeal No.558 of 2011 (O & M ) title, which they established on record by leading documentary evidence. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed Dated: February 11,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE