R.S.A. No. 2808 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2808 of 2008 Date of decision: September 11, 2008 Gurbachan Singh ..Appellant v. Gurdarshan Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant-plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration claiming ownership of the land on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit claiming the aforesaid relief and also challenging the orders of eviction passed by the revenue authorities. The land in question was owned by Sham Singh. On his death, the same was inherited by Khemi. It was rented out to the appellant-plaintiff on 13.9.1972 for a period of 25 years. Before her death on 23.10.1975, the land in question was transferred by Khemi to respondent-defendant No.1-Gurdarshan Singh. The present litigation is between the appellant-plaintiff and Gurdarshan Singh. As far as the challenge to the ejectment against the appellant- plaintiff is concerned, the issue was decided in favour of the appellant- plaintiff, so the same is not in dispute in the present appeal. As far as the prayer regarding permanent injunction is concerned, the learned Court below found that the appellant-plaintiff filed two suits earlier claiming the same relief, one of which was dismissed on 21.4.1989 whereas the second suit was dismissed as withdrawn by him on 13.12.1993. In view of these facts on record, it was opined that the R.S.A. No. 2808 of 2008 [2] subsequent suit claiming the same relief was barred. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff could not point out as to how the subsequent suit claiming the same relief could be filed by him as earlier he had failed twice. As far as prayer for declaration on the basis of adverse possession is concerned, suffice it to say that the suit filed claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession as such is not maintainable in terms of the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97. Even on that ground, the appellant- plaintiff has been correctly non-suited. Learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff submitted that the respondents-defendants in the present case has already filed a suit for possession which is pending before the Court below. Be that as it may, the same will not have any effect as far as the present appeal is concerned. In view of the above factual matrix and legal position, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as the same does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.9.2008 mk