IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3033 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.11.2009 Mange Ram … Appellant Versus Jai Lal etc. …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. Sabina, J (Oral) The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession over the land measuring 0 kanal 17 marlas which has been encroached upon by the defendants and the same is comprised in killa no.91/9/1 3-17 vide khewat No.512/481 khatoni No.571. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.1998. In appeal, the Addl. Session Judge, Bhiwani dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.2004. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos.2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “2. Succinctly narrated that the claim of the plaintiffs as set up for trial, is that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 17 marla as per killa No.91/9/1 3-17, comprised in khewat No.512/481, Khatoni No.571 through Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and plaintiff are joint owners of the land in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 is owner of the ½ share of the land and defendants No.2 and 3 are owners of 1/6 share and plaintiff No.4 is owner of 1/3 share of the total suit land. The plaintiffs had purchased the RSA No.3033 of 2004 (O&M) above said suit land from Smt. Savitri daughter of Duli Chand, vide sale deed No.177 of dated 15.5.82, in the sum of Rs.45,000/- and on that very day, the possession was given to the plaintiffs by the seller Savitri daughter of Duli Chand. Plaintiff had constructed one Gher upto northern side of the land in dispute and the wall was about 2-1/2 feet high. Plaintiffs have also constructed the wall over khasra No.9/2 and khasra No.9/1, and one room has also been constructed in the northern side of the disputed suit land. About quarter past three years ago, defendant No.1 had encroached upon the land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla and encroached portion is bounded as under:- East: Land measuring 5 karam of khasra No.9/2. West: Land measuring 8 karam of khasra no.10. North : Land measuring 24 yards of khasra no.9/1 and South: Land measuring 24 yards in khasra no.9/3. It is also asserted that in the South-west corner of the present suit land, defendants have encroached upon the land measuring 0 kanals 17 marla by demolishing the South-West wall forcibly. In the eastern side, one Gate has already been opened by the defendants and about last one year ago, 10 marlas of land are being used for the purpose of rubbish and for preparing dung cakes. On the application of plaintiffs the demarcation was conducted by additional collector, on dated 7.6.88 on the spot and it was found that defendants were in unauthorized possession over the land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla. The fact came 2 RSA No.3033 of 2004 (O&M) into the notice of the plaintiff about 15 days ago and the plaintiffs made earnest requests to the defendants to admit the claim of the plaintiff and to vacate the suit land, but all the requests of the plaintiffs remained barren of results. All these fact and circumstances necessitated to file the present suit. 3. On the other hand, defendants appeared with counsel, having filed their written statement, refuting the stand taken by the plaintiffs. Defendants have vehemently pleaded that it is wrong to say that the defendants have encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs but the defendants have raised construction over the disputed suit land from last so many years and defendants are in possession from the year 1973 to onwards and alleged sale of the plaintiffs is wrong. In fact, it is wrong to say that about 3-1/2 years ago, in khasra No.91/9/1 the defendants had encroached over the land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla but defendant no.1 had purchased the land measuring 180 sq.yards from defendant No.2 and 3 on dated 18.7.1973 and over the disputed suit land, there was a Ghar of Duli Chand father of Savitri and it is in existence even upto today. Even Ghar of the plaintiffs is over the land measuring 3 kanals 17 marlas upto today and the wrong demarcation has obtained by the plaintiffs. It is also asserted that the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit; the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form; that suit of the plaintiffs is based on false and frivolous allegations. It is therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed with costs. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 3 RSA No.3033 of 2004 (O&M) 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and the court fee has been affixed? OPD. 4. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his won act and conduct? OPD. 6. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, placed on record, have held that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit land. Reliance in this regard was placed on the revenue record available on the file as well as demarcation report. Thus, the defendants had no concern with the suit land and consequently, the defendants who were in unauthorized possession of the land, were directed to vacate the suit land. The finding of fact arrived at by the courts below calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. 4 RSA No.3033 of 2004 (O&M) No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 27.11.2009 sd 5