RSA No.3764 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3764 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:21.09.2010. Islam ...Appellant Versus Vijay Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is filed by legal representative of defendant No.1 alone against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession has been decreed and the counterclaim filed by the defendants has been dismissed and they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree, failing which the plaintiffs have been held entitled to apply to the Court for delivery of possession to them through the process of law. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the plots of 3 Marlas in village Dhabi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad were gifted to them by the Gram Panchayat for construction of their residential houses. The plaintiffs, who had gone to Gujrat for earning their livelihood as labourers, had found that the defendants have occupied their plots in their absence. Hence, they filed suit for possession. In defence, it was pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the suit property for the last 20 years and RSA No.3764 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ******* their possession has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, but ultimately, both the Courts below had found that the defendants have failed to prove even their adverse possession over the land in dispute because except for their self-serving statements, they could not prove any documentary evidence by examining any witness in that behalf. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to justify the adverse possession of the defendants, but has miserably failed as there is no evidence worth credence available on record to prove that the possession of the defendants has been continuous, open and hostile for 12 years before filing of the suit. In view of the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree which has been challenged before this Court nor any substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant in this appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. September 21, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE