R.S.A. No. 4720 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4720 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Zile …..Appellant Vs. Ram Kuwar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession was dismissed holding defendant to be in adverse possession under issue No.5. The lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Defendant has preferred this appeal challenging the findings of the lower Appellate Court. Heard. R.S.A. No. 4720 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the defendant- appellant has vehemently contended that the evidence produced on the record had been fairly appreciated by the trial Court while arriving at a conclusion that the defendant had become owner by adverse possession by observing that construction of the house had been raised by the defendant around 1984 as admitted by the plaintiff’s witness in cross-examination. I have carefully considered the contention of counsel for the appellant and find that the lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court regarding the defendant- appellant having become owner by adverse possession by observing that the trial Court had ignored the entries in jamabandi Ex.P1 for the year 2003-04 where the suit land has been mentioned as gair mumkin plot. The finding regarding construction having been raised in the year 1984 has, in view of Ex.P1, stands rightly set aside by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence by observing that there is no mention of any house having been constructed on the property in dispute. Besides this, the finding of the lower Appellate Court is that the possession of the defendant has not been established to be open, continuous and hostile to the whole world. The judgment of reversal passed by the lower Appellate Court has been passed by giving sufficient reasons for the conclusions arrived at regarding the defendant- appellant having not become owner by adverse possession. Dismissed. R.S.A. No. 4720 of 2010 (O&M) [3] Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the decree for possession has been passed regarding area of 3 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 481/453, Khatoni No. 525, Khasra No. 323/1/26 situated in Village Shamri Buran, Tehsil Gohana but the demarcation report relied upon by the plaintiff dated June 24, 2007 Ex.P3 is only to the effect that the defendant- appellant is in possession of 28 sq. yards belonging to the plaintiff- respondent. It has also been contended that in the garb of the judgment, the possession of the house constructed in the plot owned by the defendant will be taken taking the advantage of vagueness of the decree. I have considered the last contention of counsel for the defendant- appellant and I am of the opinion that the plea that defendant has been in possession of only 28 sq. yards of land out of 3 marlas of suit land has neither been raised nor adjudicated by the Courts below. Without expression of any opinion on the said argument, it is left open to the defendant- appellant to protect the land actually owned by him by raising objections in accordance with law at an appropriate time. March 31, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE