IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.4339 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:18.11.2010 Inder Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Maya Devi and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession was decreed on the basis of the title. The suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent on the basis of the title was resisted by the appellants on the ground that they had come into possession on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 19.12.1979 and this fact of delivery is also recited in the sale deed dated 5.6.1980 which was executed for a part of the suit property and thus the plea was taken that they were put into possession on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell being the prospective vendees. In the alternative, it was also claimed that they have become the owners of the suit property being in adverse possession which was open and hostile to the rights of the plaintiff- respondent. R.S.A. No.4339 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The Courts below non-suited the appellants on the plea of prospective vendees holding that the agreement to sell in question (Ex.DW1/1) could not be proved in accordance with law as the original of the same was not produced and the sale deed DW1/2 does not make any reference to the aforesaid agreement. The Court below also recorded a finding of fact that the appellants failed to establish their adverse possession as claimed by them and thus suit was decreed. The only argument raised before this Court by the counsel for the appellants is that since the plaintiff- respondent has denied the document on the basis of which the appellants have come into possession, their possession becomes adverse to the interest of the plaintiff- respondent from the date when they were put into possession. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is without any merit, as in the first instance, it is their own plea that they were put into possession being prospective vendees on the basis of the document Ex.DW1/1 (photocopy of the agreement to sell in question) and the same was held inadmissible as the same could not be proved. A finding has also been recorded that the appellants have failed to prove the necessary ingredients to claim their right of being in adverse possession. Nothing has been pointed out on the basis of which, the aforesaid finding could be challenged. The appellants could not prove title by way of adverse possession and also could not establish their right to hold the possession as prospective vendees by implication of law. Their possession was thus rightly held to be illegal and plaintiff- respondent was found entitled to the relief of possession. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the R.S.A. No.4339 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ld. Trial court to that effect. Dismissed. No substantial question of law arises. November 18, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE