RSA No.2187 of 1980 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2187 of 1980 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Shanti Lal ...Appellant VERSUS Dev Karan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the mutation of Samat 1999 in favour of all the brothers including in favour of one Tirkha. The Courts below also held that the appellant not being in possession suit for declaration/simpliciter did not lie. The only question posed by learned counsel for the appellant is whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- 1. “Admittedly, father of the appellant late Shri Tirkha Ram had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 13.8.1936 AD. Whether mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendants confers any title RSA No.2187 of 1980 -2- on them? 2. Whether the Jamabandi can be held to be document of title? 3. Whether once defendants have claimed that they have become owner by adverse possession, proves that defendants have admitted ownership of plaintiffs? 4. Whether a person who claims to be an owner, can claim adverse possession?” It would be seen that the above mentioned questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings regarding jointness of the property are either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse. Learned counsel has also argued that since the respondents had taken the plea of adverse possession the Courts below were bound to hold that the appellant was owner. In this regard, suffice it to say that the plea of adverse possession was an alternate plea but the substantive plea of the respondents was that the property was not sole property of Tirkha but was of all the brothers jointly. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 03, 2009 JUDGE ashish