RSA No.754 of 2007 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.754 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.11.2008 Santokh Singh ..Appellant. Vs. Darshan Singh and another ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This is plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The question involved in this appeal is “as to whether the plaintiff can seek a decree for declaration on the basis of being in adverse possession.” Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanals 0 marla comprised in Khasra numbers 125//13/8-0 as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02 situated in the area of village Kamalpur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala on the basis of open, continuous, hostile and adverse possession for the last more than 40 years. The plaintiff has also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the alienation of the suit land in any manner and from dispossessing him illegally and forcibly. On notice, RSA No.754 of 2007 -2 - defendants filed written statement in which it was, inter alia, alleged in the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 40 years. Rather it was alleged that earlier Sudagar Singh and Darshan Singh were in possession of the suit land which was given by them to the plaintiff on rent. Thus, the possession of the plaintiff was alleged to be permissible and not adverse. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court has recorded that the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW3 has himself admitted that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and he has no concern with its ownership. It was also found that no document has been placed on record by the plaintiff to prove that he is in continuous possession even otherwise mere long possession will not prove adverse possession. Be that as it may, now this point is not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 in which it has been held that a person in adverse possession can not file a suit for declaration claiming ownership. Learned counsel for the appellant could not rebut the factual as well as legal position arising out of the appeal nor could raise any question of law much less substantial, therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 18.11.2008 Judge Meenu