R.S.A No. 3219 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3219 of 2008 Date of decision : November 17, 2008 Smt. Ram Kala Devi & others, ...... Appellants. through Mr.R.A.Yadav, Advocate v. Basant Lal & others, ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court allowing the appeal of the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, since deceased, (now represented through his L.Rs/appellants), that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. The learned lower appellate Court found that the predecessors- in-interest of the appellant were recorded to be in possession of the land as gair marusi tenants and in the column of rent the rate is mentioned as Rs.4 as Chakota. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court, relying upon the decisions of this Court in Peer Dia and others vs. Man Singh and others, 1976 PLJ 626 (P&H) wherein this Court held that mere non-payment of rent by a tenant does not constitute adverse possession, and Gurcharan Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Jagral and Anr, 2000(1) Latest R.S.A No. 3219 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: Judicial Reports 108(P&H) wherein this Court held that a lessee cannot claim adverse possession against his lessor, held that plea of adverse possession was not open to the plaintiff. Learned lower appellate Court further relied upon Kanak Ram and others vs Chanan Singh and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 213(P&H), and Bhim Singh and others vs. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97, wherein this Court held that a plea of adverse possession is available only to a defendant and that a suit on the basis of adverse possession would not lie. Learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and others vs Nihal Singh, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 222 and Girja Kumar and others v. State of H.P & another, 2007 AIR SCW 7353, and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Manmohan Service Station v. Mohd. Haroon Japanwala and others, AIR 1994 Delhi 337 to argue that the proposition of law, advanced by this Court, was not correct. In my opinion, this is not so. In the case of Bondar Singh and others (supra), no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the suit filed by a person claiming to be in adverse possession, yet it is to be seen from this judgment that no plea was raised at all on behalf of the owners that a suit for claiming title on the basis of adverse possession did not lie. This would be clear from the fact that in para 3 of the judgment in Bondar Singh and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “3. The main question for consideration in the present suit is as to whether the plaintiffs were in hostile continuous possession of the suit lands by virtue of which they had perfected their title to the land by adverse R.S.A No. 3219 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: possession. .....” Even in the case of Girja Kumar and others' case (supra), no plea was taken regarding the maintainability of the suit. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) does deal with this question to hold that such a suit is maintainable. I, however, find that the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh and others' case (supra) considers the judgment of the Delhi High Court and, relying upon an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court [which was not referred to in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra)], distinguished the judgment in Manmohan Service Station's case (supra) and held that such a suit is not maintainable. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Bhim Singh and others' case (supra) and consequently hold that the suit is not maintainable. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 17 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'