RSA No. 148 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.148 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 20-01-2009 Sukhdev Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Amar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No.501-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 267 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.148 of 2008 This appeal is directed against the judgements of the Trial Court dated 3.11.2003 and the First Appellate Court dated 15.9.2006 . It was pleaded by the appellants that they are in possession of the suit property since 1965 and that the suit filed by the respondents against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was decreed in the year 1973. This suit was for possession. In the appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. In this manner, the suit of the respondents stood decreed, but no possession was taken. Thereafter, all the entries subsequent to the year 1975 till 1996 are in favour of the appellants and show their possession on the suit property. It was contended that they RSA No. 148 of 2008 (O&M) 2 have thus become the owners of the property by way of adverse possession. The respondents contested the suit and contended that the appellants were inducted as Gair Marusi tenants in the year 1975 and therefore, in the consistent record pursuant to the aforesaid date, appellants have been shown as Gair Marusi tenants over the suit land and therefore, their possession was permissible and cannot be termed as hostile. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 had perfected their title qua the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants were threatening to cause interference with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Relief and on the basis of evidence before it came to the conclusion that consistent entries after 1975 shows that the appellants were put in possession as Gair Marusi tenants and concluded that such revenue entries could not mean that the possession of the appellants was hostile to the knowledge of the respondents and subsequently could not be held that the appellants were in adverse possession. Similar findings were recorded by the First Appellate Court in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that they are in possession since 1965 and therefore, since the respondents failed to take possession of the property after passing of the decree by the First Appellate RSA No. 148 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Court. Therefore, the possession is hostile and open to the knowledge of the respondents and consequently, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of any merit. Since 1975 till 1996 consistent revenue entries are to the effect that appellants are Gair Marusi tenants implying thereby that they are the tenants under the respondents. In this eventuality, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be faulted with and cannot be termed to be perverse in the given set of circumstances. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 20 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge