RSA No.3396 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3396 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Piara Singh and another .....Appellants v. Jai Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 24.3.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing appeal filed by appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed and rather respondents-defendants were held to be owners of the land in dispute. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed this suit for a decree for declaration that they have become owners in possession of the land in dispute by acquiring occupancy rights qua the land in dispute. The fact that respondents-defendants are owners of the land in dispute is not disputed. Plea of present appellants-plaintiffs is that they had been continuing in possession of the same on payment of nominal rent to respondents- RSA No.3396 of 2011(O&M) -2- defendants, who are owners of the land in dispute for the last more than 40 years and that there was an agreement with ancestors of respondents- defendants that appellants-plaintiffs would not be ejected and no rent would be claimed. However, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced on the point to establish the plea of appellants-plaintiffs that they have acquired ownership rights as occupancy tenants under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short `the Act'). It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that in the jamabandies, possession of present appellants-plaintiffs has been recorded as tenants and hence they can be deemed to be occupancy tenants and acquired ownership rights. However, learned Courts below have rightly held that appellants-plaintiffs have been able to prove only that they are in possession of the land in dispute and they have failed to prove the they have acquired occupancy rights under the Act and hence, they have become owners of the same. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 13.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge