RSA No.2823 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2823 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Gurudwara Sahib Village Sirthala Birajman Shree Guru Granth Sahib .....Appellant v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala through its Sarpanch and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Pandher, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, dismissing suit filed by present appellant- plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession and that the revenue record showing ownership of respondent no.1-Gram Panchayat is liable to be corrected in the name of plaintiff with further declaration that auction already made by the Gram Panchayat of the land in dispute is null and void with consequential relief of RSA No.2823 of 2011(O&M) -2- permanent injunction restraining respondent no.1-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute. Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff on appreciation of evidence was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that possession of the land in dispute has been established and it has been so held by learned Courts below and hence, he is entitled at least for relief of injunction. However there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. It has been rightly observed by learned Courts below by placing reliance upon Gurudwara Sahib Sannauli v. State of Punjab (2009) 154 PLR 756, that no declaration can be sought by plaintiff for ownership on the basis of adverse possession as the plea is available only to defendant. However, admittedly respondent-Gram Panchayat is the owner of the property in dispute. The present appellant-plaintiff is in possession of the same without any right. Hence, he is having no right to seek injunction against the Gram Panchayat. 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 RSA No.2823 of 2011(O&M) -3- second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge