RSA No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2011. Punnu Ram .......Appellant Vs. Madan Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over a temporary servant quarter, constructed in Khasra Nos. 5(8-0), 6(8-0). The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they were co-sharers in possession qua the suit land. The plaintiffs had constructed their residential house in the suit property. A temporary servant quarter had also been constructed in the suit property. Defendant was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he was in possession of the suit property. The possession of the RSA No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) -2- defendant was open, continuous, hostile and within the knowledge of the plaintiffs without any interruption. Adjoining the house of the defendant i.e. the suit property, some servants of the plaintiffs were residing. On the request of the plaintiff Sardari Lal, defendant had raised boundary wall over the suit property as kacha wall had fallen down due to irrigation. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of disputed property as described in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the defendant is in adverse possession of disputed property? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their case. Defendant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant RSA No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) -3- has placed reliance on Dropdi versus Kanhiya & Ors., 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 0073 wherein it was held as under:- “The plaintiff-appellant was, thus, rightly not held to be in possession of the disputed property and Kanhiya defendant-respondent was held to be in possession of the same. In this view of the matter, entries in jamabandi etc. lose significance altogether as the same are against facts. Otherwise also, such entries are relevant when land to which those pertain is under cultivation, and not when a residential house is constructed thereon. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Rajinder Kumar Saini versus Municipal Committee, Hissar 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 0082, wherein it was held that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness in the evidence led by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that the temporary construction, raised by the defendant, falls in Khasra Nos. 5(8-0), 6(8-0). In order to establish their ownership and possession qua the suit property, plaintiffs proved on record site plan (Ex. P-1), copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Ex. P-2) and copy of khasra girdawari (Ex.P-3). Plaintiffs also led oral evidence in support of their case. A perusal of the copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Ex.P-2), shown during the course of arguments, reveals that plaintiffs are described to be co-sharers in the suit RSA No. 853 of 2011 (O&M) -4- property to the extent of 3/72 share. Defendant has, thus, no concern with the suit property. The possession is described to be of the owners. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. Defendant, however, had failed to rebut the same. The case of the defendant was that he was in possession of the suit property and had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. However, the defendant had failed to establish the said plea. The possession of the defendant qua suit property is not depicted in the revenue record. Defendant also took up the plea, in his cross examination, that he had purchased the suit property from Sardari Lal. However, the defendant had failed to prove on record any sale deed vide which he had purchased the suit property from Sardari Lal plaintiff No.1 (now represented through his legal representatives). In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as the defendant had no right, title or concern with the suit property. There is no quarrel qua proposition of law settled vide judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant but the same fail to advance the case of the appellant. In the present case, the plaintiffs had been successful in proving their case, whereas the defendant had failed to establish his plea of adverse possession or his plea that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff Sardari Lal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2011 Gurpreet