R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.12.2009 Saroop Lal and others ......Appellants Versus Santosh Kumari and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Santosh Kumari filed a suit for possession, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.2005. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.208. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1 to 4. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) 2 plaintiff Santosh Kumari is the owner of the land measuring two kanals one marlas comprised in Rect No.22, Killa No.3/1(2-1) Khewat No.24, Khatuni No.74/2 situated in village Sammu Chak Tehsil and District Gurdaspur (hereinafter to be called as suit land). The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they have illegally and forcibly occupied the same. Defendant No.5 is Gram Panchayat of village Sammu Chak Kullian and Gram Panchayat had brick paved some portion of the suit land. Plaintiff moved application to the Gram Panchayat to refrain from the work of brick paving the suit land but to no effect and the brick paving of the portion of the suit land was made forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff requested the defendants to surrender the vacant possession of the suit land after removal of Malba but they had refused to do so. Hence, this suit. 3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections to the effect that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and had concealed the true facts from the court; that the suit is not within limitation; that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The defendants have become the owner of the suit property by lapse of time by R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) 3 way of adverse possession as their possession over the suit land is actual, physical, exclusive and hostile. The defendants have constructed their kacha houses in the suit property which is within the knowledge of forefather of the plaintiff and no objection was raised by the forefathers of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff herself. After rainy season, the defendants had raised pucca houses when their kutcha houses were destroyed in the year 1988 and even at that time, no objection was raised by the plaintiff or her forefather. Electricity meter was also installed by the defendant in their respective houses and as such the possession of the defendants over the suit land was peaceful, open continue and exclusive. On merits, it is denied that the defendants have no right or interest in the suit property. The defendant No.5 has rightly brick paved the portion of the suit property. All other averments as alleged in the plaint have been denied by the defendants and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land measuring 2 kanal 1 marla as detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) 4 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the defendants have become owner of the suit property by adverse possession ? OPD 6. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute after removal of debris. The case of the defendants was that they were in possession of the suit property since the time of partition. They had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Admittedly, the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute and defendants-appellants are in possession of the suit property. Learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment, has observed that there was no evidence on record that khasra No.22//3/1 had ever been given to the villagers by the forefathers of the plaintiff. As per the Shiza Aks, Phirni (circular road) was surrounded by khasra No.102 and did not surround the suit property, which was a separate khasra number. Learned Additional District Judge has further observed that the residential area in the village was surrounding the circular road. The defendants R.S.A.No. 4099 of 2009(O&M) 5 were residing in khasra number of the abadi in the village. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit land, whereas, the defendants failed to establish that their possession being adverse had matured into ownership of the suit land. Since the plaintiff was owner of the suit property, the Courts below, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, had thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 11, 2009 anita