R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 R.K.Garg and another ......Appellants Versus M/s DLF Universal Limited and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents . **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and declaration with consequential relief for permanent and mandatory injunction qua 283 square yards of property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in Faridabad had been purchased by predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff company with a view to develop a colony. Sectors 10 and 11 were carved out by the plaintiff company for R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) 2 residential and commercial purposes. Plots were sold to intending buyers in both the sectors. One plot was demarcated as D-468 A measuring 283 square yards adjoining plot No.468 in Sector 11, Faridabad. The plot in question was part and parcel of the land taken by plaintiff company in exchange from State of Haryana bounded as under:- North : Plot No.D-468 South : Road 30' wide East : Plot No.470 and 469 West : PWD Tubewells and Water Reservoirs. The plot in question was duly fenced by the plaintiff company. However, the defendants on 25.1.1998 tried to remove the barbed wire and trespass over the plot in dispute. A complaint was made to the local police but no action was taken and defendants had raised construction thereon during the pendency of the case. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 21.5.1998. Defendants No.2 and 3 averred in their written statement that the plaintiff wanted to dispossess forcibly the deity of Mahadev which had been kept in the temple situated in Sector 11-D, DLF, Faridabad. It was further averred that the temple had become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession as the temple was in existence for the last more than 20 years and the public was visiting the temple regularly for offering prayers. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) 3 framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is company is owner in possession of the suit property bearing plot No.D 468-A measuring 271 sq. yards as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 10. Whether plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD 11. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2008, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No.2 and 3 preferred an appeal and the same was R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) 4 dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.2 and 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plot in dispute is part of Sector 11 Faridabad. There is no dispute qua the fact that the plaintiff- company has developed Sectors 10 and 11 in Faridabad. DW 1 Rajinder Kumar Garg also admitted that the entire land comprising Sector 11 had been purchased by the company and had been developed by it. He had not constructed the temple nor he was aware as to when the temple had been constructed. DW-2 Adarsh Kumar Setia deposed that the temple was in existence since he started residing in Sector 11, Faridabad in the year 1992. However, he admitted that the entire land comprising Sectors 10 and 11 was owned by the plaintiff company and had been developed by the company after taking permission from the Government. DW-3 Jai Parkash proved lay out plan pertaining to Sectors 10 and 11, Faridabad. He also stated that the entire land comprising Sectors 10 and 11 was owned by the plaintiff company. Since the witnesses examined by the defendants also admitted that the entire land in Sector 11, Faridabad was owned by the company, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The plea taken by the R.S.A.No. 263 of 2010 (O&M) 5 defendants that the ownership vested with the temple on account of adverse possession also reflects that the ownership of the plaintiff qua the property in dispute was duly admitted by the defendants. However, the defendants were not able to establish that plea of adverse possession. Since the plaintiff was owner of the property in dispute, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 17, 2011 anita