-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 94 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 13, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 94 of 2011 (O&M). Rana Masih and others ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Kishan Sharma and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendants for mandatory injunction directing them (defendants) to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute measuring 7 Marlas to the plaintiffs was -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 94 of 2011 (O&M). decreed. It is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs are owners of the plot bearing No.A/10 measuring 7 Marlas situated in Village Bambiwal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. This property was purchased by the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs i.e Smt. Shila from the Rehabilitation Department vide sale certificate / conveyance deed dated 8.3.1968. After purchase, construction had also been raised on the said plot by Smt.Shila. Smt.Shila expired on 2.4.1970 and after her death the plaintiffs inherited the property in dispute. The plaintiffs were busy in their respective job / business at different places. Since there was no body to look after the property in dispute and the defendants, who were residing in the same locality, were in need of accommodation, they approached the plaintiffs for taking the property in dispute on lease. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to live in the house as licencees from June, 1996 for a period of three years. Thereafter, the defendants, in spite of repeated requests of the plaintiffs and a legal notice having been served on them by the plaintiffs, failed to vacate the property in dispute and, instead, claimed adverse possession over the property in dispute. The plea of adverse possession taken by the defendants has been negatived by both the Courts below. It has been held by both the Courts below that the status of the defendants in the suit property was permissive being licencees only. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 94 of 2011 (O&M). findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 13, 2011. JUDGE ak