IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 09, 2008 Jasbir Kaur ....Appellant Versus Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant that she was owner in possession of land measuring 08 Kanals and that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the same or in the alternative that she had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar on 02.03.2001. The plaintiff then filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)/Fast Track Court, Amritsar on 04.06.2007. Aggrieved of the same, she has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case, as set up by the plaintiff-appellant in her plaint, was that she was in possession of the suit land for more than 100 years without paying any rent. She was occupancy tenant over the suit property. After Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2007 -2- coming into force of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, w.e.f. 15.10.1952, she became owner of the land. However, Avtar Kaur-defendant who was recorded as owner of the land was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property. The said defendant also filed an ejectment application in Form ‘L’ which was dismissed by the competent authority which decision was upheld in appeal as well. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration. The suit was resisted by Avtar Kaur defendant who, besides taking up preliminary objections regarding the suit being barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and the plaintiff being estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct, pleaded that the plaintiff had not become the owner of the suit property by way of hostile and adverse possession. The plaintiff was a tenant and still continued to be a tenant. Her possession could not mature into ownership. It was also denied that the plaintiff was occupancy tenant of the suit property or had become owner by coming into force of the Act w.e.f. 15.10.1952. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. It may not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, sole defendant Smt. Avtar Kaur died. Her legal representatives, namely, Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and Raj Davinder Singh were brought on record. Even Raj Davinder Singh, one of the legal representatives died later on and accordingly, Gurbinder Singh and Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2007 -3- Sukhwinder Kaur were brought on record as his legal representatives. It is not in dispute that Avtar Kaur defendant filed Civil Suit No. 202 of 1988 against Jasbir Kaur, wherein she sought possession of the suit land on the ground that Jasbir Kaur had sublet the property in question to two persons, namely, Yogeshwar and Zorawar Singh. Jasbir Kaur filed her written statement on 15.01.1990 pleading therein that the suit land was still under tenancy and she was in possession of the same as a tenant. In view of the said stand of Smt. Jasbir Kaur, Smt. Avtar Kaur withdrew her suit and the same was, accordingly, dismissed. All this makes it clear that on 15.01.1990, the plaintiff-appellant was still in occupation of the suit land as a tenant. Her claim that she had become owner of the suit land w.e.f. 15.10.1952 on account of coming into force of the Act has, thus, no legs to stand upon. On the basis of proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, learned lower Courts concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant did not deserve the relief of declaration. These findings of facts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. As the appeal is without any merit, it is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 09, 2008 JUDGE Gurpreet/satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO