R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 Date of decision: 14.10.2009 Amarjit Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Joginer Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms.Simran Chahal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for possession as owners, which was decreed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Phillaur vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1993. In appeal filed by the defendants, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.1996. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 2 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. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh and Nazir Singh plaintiff-respondents brought a suit against Joginder Singh etc. appellant/defendants on the allegations that the plaintiffs were owners of the disputed land comprised in Khasra No.579 (5k-3M) in village Kot Grewal and that the defendants had no concern with the same. It was further mentioned in the plaint that the defendants forcibly occupied the disputed land about two years back but had no right in the same. The plaintiffs also obtained demarcation of their property at the spot and the defendants were found to be in illegal occupation of the disputed land. They were accordingly asked to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and to hand over the possession of the disputed land to them but to no effect. This suit was there after filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the disputed land comprised in Khasra No.579 (5k-3m) in village Kot Grewal after removal of the construction material (Malwa) by the defendants from the same or any other relief the court deemed proper. 3. The defendants appeared in the Court and contested the suit. In the written statement filed by them, R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 3 it was pleaded that Joginder Singh defendant No.1 and his brother Satnam Singh, Thakur Singh and Gurbux Singh were owners of the property comprised in Khasra No.574/1 at the spot. The aforesaid khasra number 574/1 was located towards the Western and Southern side of khasra number 579 above mentioned. It was also pleaded by them that even if it is found that some portion of the house of the defendants was built in khasra no.579, that house was built by the defendants nearly 70-80 years back and the defendants had become owners of the same by adverse possession and the plaintiffs were hardly left with any right in the portion of the land underneath the house of the defendants. Plea that the suit was not maintainable in the present form was also taken by the defendants. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit, plea that the plaintiffs were barred by their act and conduct to file the present suit was also taken by the defendants. It was also pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. Various other allegations as made in the plaint were also denied by the defendants.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 4 “1. Whether plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether suit is within time? OPP 4. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owners of land bearing Khasra No.579 (5k-3m). As per the demarcation report, defendants were in illegal occupation of the land in dispute. The defendants, on the other hand, averred that they were owners of khasra No.574/1 which was adjacent to khasra No.579. They had raised construction in their khasra number. However, if it was found that defendants were in possession of Khasra No.579 then they had become owners by way of adverse possession as they had built up their house nearly 70-80 years back. R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 5 Admittedly, plaintiffs are owners of khasra No.579, whereas, the defendants are owners of Khasra No.574/1. Both the khasra numbers adjoined each other. As per the report of the Local Commissioner- PW-2, defendants were found to be in illegal occupation of 11 marlas of land out of khasra No.579. Moreover, it is mentioned in the report that the old construction was in existence on the encroached area. Local Commissioner- DW-3, on the other hand, has given a report that the defendants had encroached upon 8 marlas of land out of Khasra No.579 belonging to the plaintiffs. On 2 marlas of the said land, old construction was in existence. There was some construction in the remaining encroached area also. Architect Tilak Raj Verma was examined by the defendants, who gave his report as under:- “With the observation listed above of the oldest portion marked No.1, 2, 3 and Room 4, particularly roofing material of No.1 and 2 are much old and in a very much dilapidated condition and indicates the oldest age of this portion between 75 to 76 and other portion from 25 to 30 years ago constructed. Further, after close inspection of portion 1 to 4. I am of the considered opinion as a Building expert, that the age of this portion is between 75 to 76 years and remaining portion constructed is from 25 to 30 years in good condition. Report submitted for your R.S.A.No. 931 of 1996 6 kind perusal please.” Defendant No.1 Joginder Singh, while appearing in the witness box, had deposed that at the time of raising of construction by the defendants, no objection had ever been raised by the plaintiffs. The construction had been raised by his father during his life time and his father had died on 1.1.1976. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the defendants had become owners in possession of 8 marlas of land by way of adverse possession. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 14, 2009 anita