R.S.A. No. 2841 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2841 of 2004 Date of decision: 8.12.2008 Bachan Singh (deceased) through his LR ..Appellant v. Kaka Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Brijinder Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration and permanent injunction claiming himself to have become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession and further restraining the respondents-defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly, was decreed only to the extent that the respondents-defendants were restrained from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff unless in due course of law. As far as claim of ownership on the basis of adverse possession is concerned, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that this Court in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 has already opined that the same is not a cause of action, but a weapon of defence. A suit cannot be filed claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession, as such a plea can be raised only in defence in a suit filed. Accordingly, as far as claim regarding declaration of the appellant's having become owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, the same being not maintainable initially, no illegality has been committed by the learned courts below in non-suiting the appellant. As far as claim for injunction is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant has been granted the relief of protection of his possession as he could be evicted only in due course of law. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is aggrieved against the finding of the learned court below on R.S.A. No. 2841 of 2004 [2] issue No. 1-A, whereby sale deed dated 26.7.1957 has been relied upon to declare him owner of the property. The submission is that original having not been produced, copy thereof could not be admitted into evidence as the same was not given effect to for a long time. Relying upon a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dayamathi Bai (Smt.) v. K. M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107, it was submitted that once the production of sale deed was objected to, the same should not have been relied upon by the learned court below for recording a finding in favour of the respondents of their being owners of the property. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Sale deed dated 26.7.1957 produced by the respondents was a certified photo copy from the office of Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that production thereof was objected to but that was not specific to the extent that document should not be taken as admissible in evidence and should not be exhibited. It was like an objection to mode of proof, as was even argued that the respondents should have filed an application for leading secondary evidence to prove the document. It was merely procedural. Once the document had come from the possession of a government agency and certified copy thereof had been produced, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in placing reliance thereon to hold that the respondents were owners of the property. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.12.2008 mk