IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 192 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011. Gurdev. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Buta Ram and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 23.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 24.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.192 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession over the property in dispute as they have been continuing in possession of the same and that their possession is adverse to the respondent-defendant and hence, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants have taken the plea that land in dispute was given to plaintiffs on Batai as Gair Morusi tenants and that defendant no.1 had sold the same to defendants no.2 and 3. Plea has also been taken that earlier the plaintiffs used to pay Batai to defendant no.1 and that after purchase they have become tenants under defendants no.2 and 3. Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by appellants-plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. As per revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and as per Khasra Girdawaris, it has been proved that respondent-defendant no.1 inducted Phool Chand and Amar Singh –plaintiff as Gair Morusi tenants by present respondent-defendant no.1 on payment of ½ share of produce/Batai. It has been held by both the courts that that plaintiffs and their predecessor- in-interest remained in possession as tenant and had been regularly paying 2 RSA No.192 of 2011 Batai to respondent-defendant no.1 and hence, on purchase of the land in dispute by respondents-defendants no.2 and 3, plaintiffs have become their tenants. Appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been continuing in possession over the land in dispute for the last 60 years without making of any payment/Batai and their possession is hostile to the true owner i.e. respondents. Moreover, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that suit for declaration of ownership on the basis of alleged adverse possession is not maintainable. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3