R.S.A. No. 455 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 455 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.7.2010 ... Sadhu Singh ................Appellant vs. Bachan Singh and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. K. G. Chaudhry, Advocate for the appellant ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a regular second appeal directed by plaintiff- appellant against the judgment dated 9.9.1987 passed by Sh. M.S. Luna, Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the first appeal preferred by plaintiff-Sadhu Singh against the judgment dated 8.1.1987 passed by Sh. Birinder Singh, Sub Judge-II Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, was dismissed. Plaintiffs – Karnail Singh, Sadhu Singh and Mohan Singh sons of Ujagar Singh, filed a suit for possession of the disputed property on the ground that they had been using the suit property for tethering their cattle. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land R.S.A. No. 455 of 1988 -2- was allotted to their father Ujagar Singh, which is inherited by them. The suit was contested by the opposite party by filing the written statement, in which it is mentioned that defendant has been using the suit property since 1950. In the replication the plaintiffs reiterated the averments of the plaint and denied those made in the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit property? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata? OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the defendant is owner and in possession of the suit land since 1950 or otherwise has become owner by adverse possession? OPD 5. Whether the dimensions of the suit property given in the plaint are wrong, if so, its effect? OPD 6. Relief. The plaintiffs in the trial Court, examined PW-1 Chand Kumar, PW-3 Vas Dev, PW-4 Mansa Ram, PW-5 Balbir Singh (PW- 5 not cross examined), PW-6 Sarjant Singh and plaintiff-Sadhu Singh himself appeared as PW-2 and also tendered documents Exhibit P-2 and P-3. In rebuttal Bachan Singh – defendant appeared as DW-4 and he also examined DW-1 Gurmit Singh, DW-2 Manmohan Singh and R.S.A. No. 455 of 1988 -3- DW-3 Rajinder kumar, Draftsman and closed his evidence. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs. Issues No. 2 and 3, however, were decided against the defendant. Issue No.4 regarding adverse possession and issue No.5 regarding dimensions of the suit property, were also decided against the plaintiffs and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment dated 8.1.1987 passed by Sh. Birinder Singh, Sub Judge-II Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, plaintiff- Sahdu Singh filed the Ist appeal and that appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 9.9.1987 passed by Sh. M.S. Luna, Additional District Judge, Patiala. Feeling still dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 9.9.1987 passed by Sh. M.S. Luna, Additional District Judge, Patiala and judgment dated 8.1.1987 passed by Sh. Birinder Singh, Sub Judge-II Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, the present regular second appeal has been filed. Counsel for the appellant has not placed on record any substantial question of law. The dispute in the present lis is in respect of whether the suit property connects to the property purchased by father of the plaintiff and that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and have become owner by way of adverse possession. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that plaintiffs are neither in possession of the suit property, nor have been able to prove that suit property relates to the property held by their father. So R.S.A. No. 455 of 1988 -4- much so, even before the Ist Appellate Court, counsel for the plaintiff-appellant admitted, as mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment of the Ist Appellate Court, that plaintiffs have failed to connect plot No. 6/2 with the plot in question. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. The concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below, regarding the adverse possession and regarding identity of the land not being established, does not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. ( K.C. Puri ) 14.7.2010 Judge chugh