RSA No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9 - 8 - 2011 Lachhman Singh and another ....Appellants v. Nazar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In CM No.3220-C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.1179 of 2011 The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs to the suit. They had instituted a suit for possession claiming that the land measuring 46 Kanals 17 Marlas as described in head note of the plaint was owned by one Chanan Singh on the basis of judgment and decree dated 29.3.1988 (counsel during the course of arguments and in the grounds of appeal has stated that the said judgment and decree was passed on RSA No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) [2] 29.3.1985 and wrongly in the judgments of two Courts below it has been mentioned as 29.3.1988). It was averred that since Chanan Singh, owner of the property, had suffered a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs, so they have also become owners of the suit property and, thus, are entitled to possession of the same. It was further pleaded in the suit that Bhag Singh defendant No.1 had also filed a civil suit titled as `Bhag Singh v. Dhan Kaur and others' for declaration to the effect that he had become owner of 74 Kanals 3 Marlas of land including the suit property on the ground of adverse possession and the said suit was dismissed on 8.12.1987. It was further specifically averred that the appeal filed by Bhag Singh was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1989. The various requests made by the plaintiffs to Bhag Singh defendant and his legal heirs to vacate the premises, had borne no fruit and defendants being trespassers over the suit property, were not entitled to cultivate the suit land. Notice of the suit was issued and the defendants caused appearance. In their reply, they raised many preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit; locus standi of the plaintiffs and that the suit was time barred. A further plea was raised that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties. Again a plea was repeated by the defendants that Bhag Singh had become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated the issues and thereafter the parties led their evidence. The trial Court was swayed by the fact that in view of the judgment and decree suffered by Chanan Singh, plaintiffs had become RSA No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) [3] owners of the suit property. Further the Court taking into consideration the documents i.e. Judgment and decree Exs.P2 and P3 held that Bhag Singh defendant to the suit has failed to prove his adverse possession in the earlier suit and, therefore, Bhag Singh and his legal heirs had no claim over the suit property and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the same, the legal representatives of Bhag Singh filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court addressed the core issue and held that to claim ownership through the judgment and decree suffered by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs, it was necessary that judgment and decree should have been proved on record. The Court further held that the land belongs to the State of Punjab and the judgment and decree suffered by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs will not bind the State Government, as admittedly in the earlier suit, the State of Punjab was not a party. The lower Appellate Court held that crux of the entire litigation is that how Chanan Singh got possession of the property, how Chanan Singh became owner of the property which vested in the Punjab Government, as on this important aspect neither there was any pleading nor was there any evidence. In this regard, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “21. Further during the cross examination, it has come to in light that earlier property belonged to Punjab Government and thereafter Chanan Singh got released that property and the plaintiff/respondents have failed to prove on record that how Chanan Singh became the owner of the property or how the property was got released from Punjab Government. Mere placing jamabandies, on which there is mutation on the basis of a collusive decree is of no use. The ld. Lower court has RSA No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) [4] given stress only on the aspect that since the defendant now the appellant filed a suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession and has lost the same and the plaintiffs now respondents should be declared the owners of the property. I do not agree with this observation of the lower court. So, after going through the entire record and evidence on the file, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs now respondents have miserably failed to prove that they have become the owners of the property. As such, since they have failed to prove that they are the owners of the property,resultantly, they are not entitled for any relief of possession. So, in view of above discussion, findings of the ld. Lower court on issue no.1 are set aside and issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiffs now respondents and in favour of the defendants now appellants.” Mr.Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated that the judgment and decree suffered by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs has not been produced on record. However, he has not been able to dislodge the findings given by the lower Appellate Court as to how Chanan Singh became owner of the property which vested in the Punjab Government. Mr.Gupta has only stated that State of Punjab, which was impleaded as defendant to the present suit, has not come forward to raise its claim. Merely because State of Punjab has not instituted any litigation to challenge the decree suffered by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs, will not be sufficient to hold that the State of Punjab has foregone its right. Furthermore, the decree suffered by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs RSA No.1179 of 2011 (O&M) [5] will not bind the State of Punjab, as it was not a party in the earlier litigation. Thus, there is no material placed before me to set aside the well reasoned findings returned by the lower Appellate Court. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants has not been able to formulate any question of law, much less the substantial one for consideration of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 9, 2011. JUDGE RC