R.S.A. No. 381 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 381 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.1.2009 Bhag Singh Dhanjal and another ...Appellants. Versus Lala Ram and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellants. None for the caveator-respondent No.1. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendants No.2 and 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, dated 31.5.1997, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession, was decreed. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff firm-Lala Ram Saran Dass Dharam Arth (Regd.), filed the suit through its President Madan Lal Walia for possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas 8 sarsais forming part of land comprised in rectangle No. 7, killa No. 19 (9 kanal 17 marlas) after demolishing and removal of superstructure from it. It was pleaded that R.S.A. No. 381 of 2009 -2- the suit land was owned by the Trust and earlier it was let out to defendant No.1 and he was in possession thereof. However, in a previous suit filed by the plaintiff, he denied his possession over the suit land but had alleged that the land was in possession of a firm M/s Bhag Singh Dhanjal, whereas Shri Bhag Singh Dhanjal was the son of defendant No.1. On 21.2.1986, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff with permission of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur to file a fresh on the same cause of action and the costs awarded by the court were duly deposited. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 had been running the business over the suit land and in order to change the identity of the person in possession, took the plea that the aforesaid firm was in possession of the suit land but Shri Bhag Singh Dhanjal, the proprietor of the said firm was none else but the son of defendant No.1. In order to avoid any further complication, the plaintiff had now impleaded defendants No.2 and 3 who had also raised unauthorized construction over the suit land and had never surrendered possession thereof to the plaintiff. To controvert the claim of the plaintiff, two sets of written statements were filed. It was pleaded by defendant No.1 that he had been in occupation of about one marla of the suit land since the year 1965 but the same was vacated. He never delivered the possession of any part of the suit land to defendants No.2 and 3. It was, however, pleaded that he had raised the construction worth Rs.5,00,000/- over the suit land. While denying the other averments made in the plaint, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendants No.2 and 3 in their joint written statement R.S.A. No. 381 of 2009 -3- besides raising various preliminary objections pleaded that the plaintiff- Trust was not a registered Trust but was a registered Society and its registration was illegal. It was pleaded that the land in their possession was in their own right without any hindrance from any one for more than 20 years and they had raised the construction thereon in the year 1970. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 had neither any concern with the suit land nor had he delivered its possession to them. They also prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial court framed various issues including issue No.2- whether the plaintiff was owner of the disputed property? On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiff was a registered Trust and was owner of the suit land. It was further held that the defendants had failed to prove that they became owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession thereof. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.1997 decreed the suit of the plaintiff by passing a decree for possession of the suit land. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 while affirming the findings recorded by the trial court, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal by defendants No.2 and 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record R.S.A. No. 381 of 2009 -4- to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below but the same was not possible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below have concurrently held under issue No.2 that the plaintiff was owner of the land in dispute. Moreover, under issue No. 4-A, the defendants had miserably failed to establish their plea that they had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. January 21, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE