R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 26, 2011 Hans Raj and others .... Appellants Vs. Kamla Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 and one of the legal representatives of defendant no.5 have filed the instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Sheo Ram – plaintiff no.1 (since deceased and represented by respondents no.1 to 7) along with respondents 8 to 11 as plaintiffs no.2 to 5 filed suit against appellants and proforma respondents no.12 to 23 alleging that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 05 kanals 11 marlas having purchased it vide sale deeds dated 28.05.1999 and 02.03.2000. Prior to it, they were also tenants over a part of the suit land. R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 2 Defendants have no concern with the suit property, but they threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land by placing fuel wood, dung cakes etc. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. Contesting defendants no.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 to 18 broadly controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that plaintiffs never remained in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that answering defendants, along with some other persons mentioned in the written statement, are in peaceful possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers and they have become owners thereof by adverse possession. Contesting defendants also sought declaration to this effect by filing counter claim. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2008, decreed the plaintiffs' suit and dismissed the counter claim of contesting defendants. First appeal preferred by some of the contesting defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2011. Feeling aggrieved, some of the contesting defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Plaintiffs have led overwhelming evidence to prove their case. R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 3 They have proved both sale deeds vide which they purchased the suit land. They have also produced on record various jamabandis and khasra girdawaris, wherein they are recorded to be owners in possession of the suit land and prior to them, their vendors were recorded to be owners thereof. All this documentary evidence is sufficient to prove that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. Defendants' oral evidence is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid documentary evidence. It is not difficult for a party to produce a couple of witnesses, who may depose orally in favour of the party examining them. Such oral evidence cannot be said to be sufficient to deprive a person of his valuable property. Contesting defendants have miserably failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit land or ever remained in possession thereof, much less to prove their adverse possession for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of the plaintiffs and against the contesting defendants is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. It may be added that Hans Raj – defendant no.1, while appearing in the witness-box, stated that he did not know who was the true owner of the suit land. Thus, he could not tell against whom the contesting defendants were claiming the adverse possession. He also did not state as to R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 4 when they came in possession of the suit land and when their possession became adverse. On the contrary, defendants' witness Preeti (DW-1), stated in cross-examination that since his childhood, he had been seeing that Sheo Ram etc. i.e. plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. This statement of defendants' own witness belies the defendants' version and supports the plaintiffs' version. Defendants' other witness Ramnath (DW-2) stated in cross-examination that he did not know as to who is in possession of the suit land. Thus, even defendants' oral evidence is not reliable. We are left with solitary statement of Hans Raj – defendant no.1 as DW-3. His sole self- serving statement is not sufficient to prove possession of the contesting defendants over the suit land, much less their adverse possession for more than 12 years. Statement of Jagdish Lamba – Draftsman (DW-4) is not of much significance as he simply prepared the site plan. It may also be added that defendants' counter claim that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession is in the nature of a suit. However, relief of ownership of land by adverse possession cannot be sought by filing suit because adverse possession can be set up only as defence. Consequently, counter claim made by defendants is not even maintainable. This view finds support from two judgments of this Court namely Bhim Singh and others vs. Zile Singh and others reported as 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 479 (P&H) and Dewaki and others vs. Dayawanti and others reported as R. S. A. No. 2384 of 2011 5 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 615 (P&H). For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is not only meritless, but is also completely frivolous. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. May 26, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE