IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1966 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 13, 2009 Puran Chand .....Appellant Versus Kaushalya Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 was decreed, the defendant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bone of contention between the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 5 on the one hand and the defendant/appellant on the other is House No. 320, Samadhi Gate, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. According to the plaintiffs, they, alongwith-defendants No. 3 to 5, were its absolute owner after the demise of Jiwan Ram and the defendant/appellant had no right, title or interest in the same. According to the plaintiffs, Municipal Corporation-defendant No.1, wrongly entered the name of the R.S.A. No. 1966 of 2009 -2- defendant/appellant as joint owner of the aforementioned property with Jiwan Ram, and thus sought a decree for mandatory injunction, requiring Municipal Corporation-defendant No.3 to delete the name of the defendant/appellant from its record and to record their names and that of defendants No. 3 to 5 as owners. They also prayed for restraining the appellant from selling, alienating, renting, mortgaging or transferring the portion consisting of two room set in the suit property to any other person or raising/making any kind of construction, additions or alteration in those two rooms. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, learned Courts below had held that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5 alongwith proforma defendants were owners of the suit property and they were entitled to the grant of mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction. The plea of the appellant was that he had contributed towards sale price of the plot and spent money on raising the construction over the same. At the same time, he raised another plea of having become owner of the portion of the suit property, which was in his possession, on the basis of adverse possession. He, however, did not dispute the fact that the sale deed Ex.PW2/1 of the suit property was executed in favour of Jiwan Ram, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5 and proforma defendants. In such a situation, there could not be any plea of adverse possession against the co-owner as pleaded by the defendant/appellant. Moreover, the appellant R.S.A. No. 1966 of 2009 -3- failed to substantiate his plea of adverse possession as it was neither open nor hostile against the plaintiffs. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, arise for consideration. The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 13, 2009 JUDGE satish