Regular Second Appeal No. 3692 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3692 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.9.2011 Krishan Chander ... Appellant Versus Kasturi and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the caveators/respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The plaintiff, having failed in two rounds of litigation, has filed the present regular second appeal. Plaintiff-Smt. Jagmati had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that she had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. She has also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from the peaceful possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has drawn my attention to paragraph No.7 of the written statement, gist of which is given in paragraph No.2 of the judgment of trial Court, which is reproduced as under:- Regular Second Appeal No. 3692 of 2011 2 “2. On notice, defendants No.1 to 5 filed a joint written statement in which possession of plaintiff on suit property was denied. However, later it was claimed that defendants had never given any threat to plaintiff and that they had only asked her to hand over possession of disputed site to defendants because they were owners of suit property. It was also claimed that the possession of plaintiff was not hostile but permissive in nature”. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that in view of the law laid in Bhim Singh v. Zile Singh 2006(3) Recent Civil Reports 97, wherein it was held that the plea of adverse possession can only be taken in defence and on such a plea suit cannot be filed. Thus, learned counsel submits that he will not press the plea that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even though declaration was declined to the appellant/plaintiff, yet the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 30 years. He has further submitted that possession of the appellant/plaintiff should have been protected and permanent injunction ought to have been granted to her. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the caveators/respondents, has submitted that once the suit for declaration was held not maintainable, ancillary relief cannot be granted to the appellant/plaintiff. It is further submitted that the consequential relief of permanent injunction ought to be treated as ancillary. He has drawn my Regular Second Appeal No. 3692 of 2011 3 attention to the closing lines of paragraph No.9 of the judgment rendered by the trial Court, wherein learned counsel for the plaintiff has not pressed the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. An appropriate portion of the above said paragraph reads as under:- “9...Therefore, issues No.1 & 2 are decided against plaintiff. In view of these findings, plaintiff is also not entitled to any relief of injunction because the main relief of declaration itself is not available to them. During arguments, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff did not even press upon seeking any relief of injunction in favour of plaintiff...” Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since there was an admission by the defendants that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and they should not dispossess him therefrom, except in due process of law, he will not press the present appeal. In view of the admission made by the defendants that they will not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, except in due course of law and further prayer for interim injunction was not pressed before the trial Court, no interference is warranted in the present appeal as no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 12, 2011 “DK”