RSA No.1003 of 2004 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1003 of 2004 Date of decision: 21.11.2008 **** Om Parkash . . . . Appellant(s) Versus Surinder Singh and another . . . . Respondent(s) **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.O.P. Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession and sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his ownership and possession. At the very outset, Mr.C.B. Goel, counsel for the respondent(s), has referred to a decision of this Court rendered in case of “Bhim Singh and others vs. Zile Singh and others” 2006(3) PLR 159, in which after taking into consideration the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, it has been held that no declaration can RSA No.1003 of 2004 - 2 - be sought by a plaintiff with regard to his ownership on the basis of adverse possession. The plea is available only to the defendant against a plaintiff. No contrary judgment is cited by the counsel for the appellant(s). In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much less substantial is involved in this appeal. More particularly, the suit itself is not maintainable. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 21.11.2008 JUDGE vivek