IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1306 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.5.2010 Darshana Devi ....Appellant Versus Ishwar (dead) through LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. G.S.Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. She had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 25.11.1982 is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on her rights and that she is in possession of the suit property and in the alternative she pleaded that that she is in adverse possession of the suit property and on this ground prayed for decretal of the suit. The respondents pleaded that the husband of the appellant had executed a sale deed dated 25.11.1982 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- and that the appellant has no concern with the suit property. They pleaded that the plaintiff in collusion with her husband encroached upon the suit property. R.S.A.No.1306 of 2007 (O&M) -2- The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property qua the sale deed dated 25.11.1982 is illegal, null and void as per the averments taken in the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by way of his own act and conduct?OPD 8. Relief. Both the courts below held that the sale deed in favour of the respondents was valid and therefore the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is now in second appeal to contend that the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the appellant is in adverse possession of the suit property. He further pleaded that even if the sale deed is to be accepted, yet he is in possession of the suit property and therefore injunction ought to have been granted in his favour. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the sale deed having been accepted, the appellant has R.S.A.No.1306 of 2007 (O&M) -3- no right in the property and therefore the Courts below have justifiably dismissed the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the validity of the sale deed are erroneous. Rather, before this Court a plea was taken that she is in adverse possession of the property and reference was made to the plaint to say that in the alternative the appellant prayed for permanent injunction on ground that he has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. I am afraid this plea cannot be accepted. The appellant who has pleaded adverse possession impliedly admits the ownership of the respondents and such a plea can only be taken as a defence. Having regard to this, the plea necessarily has to be rejected. However, it has to be seen that both the parties are ad idem that the appellant is in possession. In such an eventuality when the appellant has failed to show any illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below regarding the validity of the sale deed, the only recourse left to the respondents is to claim possession in accordance with law. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take possession from the appellant by having recourse of law. 5.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss