RSA No.2842 of 2007 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2842 of 2007 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.03.2010 Ram Dia and others .. Appellants Versus Jammu Ram and Others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate for LRs of respondent No.1 . . . This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the learned Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellants for declaration that they are the owners of the land and that the respondent No.1 is their tenant and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating the land in dispute. The case set up by the appellants was that the land in dispute was subject to River action and that they being the proprietors of the village, were the owners thereof. It is further pleaded that they had given the land on lease to respondent No.1 from Kharif 1966-67 and he continued paying Batai for 30 years and stopped to pay thereafter. Not only that, he started threatening them that he would alienate the land in dispute. Consequently, the present suit. The defendant-respondent came and took the plea that firstly, he was also a proprietor in the Village and as such, started reclaiming the land in dispute in the year 1966. Since then he had been in open possession of RSA No.2842 of 2007 :2: the land without paying any rent, cess or Batai and that he has further denied their title in the year 1968. The learned Lower Appellate Court noticed that there were only one/two entries showing respondent No.1 as tenant. It was further noticed by learned Lower Appellate Court that land in dispute was shown in the ownership of Shamlet Deh in various Jamabandis but was also shown to be under water. The learned Lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 had reclaimed the land and had made it cultivable. Further, holding that the respondent No.1 was not proved to be the tenant of the appellants, the learned Lower Appellate Court went on to hold that the respondent No.1 had become the owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed:- (i) Whether the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge-I, Panipat is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and are, therefore, liable to be set aside or not ? (ii) Whether the findings of the Learned Appellate Court are suffering from any apparent perversity on the face of it and being contrary to law and facts on record ? (iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by Learned Appellate Court do not suffer an apparent illegality and perversity because of ignoring the material piece of evidence have been direct impact of decision of the case ? Today, however, learned counsel has not argued any of these questions but has also argued the following question:- (a) Whether the respondent could have been held to be to have become owner in adverse possession in the absence of the real owner viz. Shamlat Deh ? RSA No.2842 of 2007 :3: Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that the original recorded owner of the property, viz. Shamlat Deh is not a party in the civil suit. In these circumstances, he has fairly conceded that the finding regarding the ownership of the respondent cannot be held to be binding against the Shamlat Deh. Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny that the appellants do not represent the Shamlat Deh. Consequently, even while answering the above question in favour of the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case is decided, the application for stay as well as Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any stands disposed of. March 8, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE