R.S.A No. 4081 of 2007(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4081 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision : November 27, 2009 Mahender and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Ram Kumar and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession on the basis of title. The claim of the defendants/appellants was that they had been in continued possession of the suit land for the last more than 40 years and had, thus, perfected their title by way of adverse possession. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the defendants/appellants who have been R.S.A No. 4081 of 2007(O&M) ::2:: proved to be in actual physical possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit, adverse to all concerned, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents could be decreed ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the appellants, who have been proved to be in un-interrupted, open and hostile possession of the property in question for the last more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit, have become owners by way of adverse possession ? c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the plaintiff/respondents having withheld the best evidence and having been falsified on material aspect, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents could be decreed ?” Counsel for the appellants has argued only questions No.(a) and (b). He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Partap Kaur vs Ismail Mohd, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 36, and particularly para 12 thereof, which is quoted herein below :- “12. In this case, it has been proved through the evidence that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of this suit land to the knowledge of public and to the owner. Moreover, in the present case, no evidence in rebuttal to the assertion made by the respondent-plaintiff had been led and, as such, all these cases would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. All R.S.A No. 4081 of 2007(O&M) ::3:: the cases referred were decided on the basis of evidence on record in the respective cases. Here there is no evidence in rebuttal to the evidence given by the respondent-plaintiff.” In this connection, both the Courts below have held that even though the appellants were in possession, necessary element of hostility towards the landlords was not proved by them. The judgment in Partap Kaur's case (supra) itself records that no evidence had been led on behalf of the owner in that case. Consequently, the said judgment cannot be held to apply to the present case. In my opinion, the finding of the Courts below with regard to the absence of the element of hostility is a pure finding of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the said finding is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions argued against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 27, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 4081 of 2007(O&M) ::4::