IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.290 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.12.2009 Sardara and another … Appellants Versus Jagdish and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Harsh Banger, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 8. None for respondent No.9 Sabina, J The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession alleging that the same has been illegally and forcibly occupied by defendants by way of making construction/encroachment over the same. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Jind vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2006. In appeal, the Addl. District Judge-I, Jind also dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment and decree dated13.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The brief facts of the case as noticed by appellate Court in para Nos.2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “2. That the plaintiffs had filed the suit for possession of non agricultural land comprised in khewat No.81, khatoni no.121 khasra no.115 min (2-6) measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village kishanpura, Tehsil and District Jind (hereinafter referred to as suit land) alleging that the same had been illegally and forcibly occupied by defendants by way of making construction/encroachment over the same. It was alleged that the suit land was owned by the plaintiffs in equal shares and the defendants had no share, title or interest of any type qua the same. In the month of December, 2001 RSA No.290 of 2009 (O&M) plaintiffs alongwith their family members had gone out of village Kishanpura for a period of about 15 days in their relations and the defendants in collusion with each other and in absence and without consent and permission of plaintiff illegally and forcibly occupied the suit land measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas by way of making illegal and forcible encroachment/ construction. It was alleged that the defendant set No.1 had occupied 9 marlas land towards East and West:- 7 karmas and towards North and South 11 Karmas size 11 karmas X 7 karmas by way of construction house. The defendant set No.2 has occupied 2 marlas land towards East and West:-2 karmas and towards North and Sought:- 11 karmas size 11 karmas x 2 karmas by way of constructing a house. The defendant set no.3 had occupied 9 marlas land towards East and West :- 10 karmas and towards North and Sought:- 8 karmas size 10 karmas X 8 karmas by way of constructing a house. The defendant set No.4 had occupied 1 kanal land towards East and West:- 12 Karmas and towards North and South:-15 karmas size 15 karmas X 12 karmas by way of construction of four walls. The defendant set no.5 had occupied 1 marla land towards East and West; 2 karmas and towards North and south: 5 Karmas size 5 karms x 2 karms by way of constructing a house. The defendant set no.6 has occupied 5 marlas land towards East and west: 9 Karmas towards north and south: 5 karmas size 9 karmas x 5 karmas by way of constructing a ghar. On return, the plaintiffs found defendants in illegal and forcible possession of the suit land and thereof they had requested them to remove their constructions/encroachment from the suit land and to hand over the vacant possession of same to the plaintiffs. The defendants had demanded some time for doing needful on one pretext or the other. Demarcation of suit land was also got conducted on spot by Suresh Kumar son of plaintiff no.2 on 13.3.2002 through Inder Singh, 2 RSA No.290 of 2009 (O&M) office Kanugo, Jind as local commissioner and it was found that defendants were in illegal and forcible possession of the suit land. The defendants had flatly refused to remove their illegal and forcible encroachment/ construction from the suit land, hence, necessity to file the suit arise. 3. In the written statement, the defendants no.1 to 8 had taken the preliminary objections such as the suit is bad for multifariousness; bad for want of purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, Bad for non joining of necessary parties and the suit had not been properly verified. It was also submitted that the alleged possession of the answering defendants over the suit land was for the last more than 20 years and hence, they had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. It was also submitted that they had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. It was also submitted that house constructed by these defendants was partly damaged during the floods in the year 1995 and compensation was given to them by the government and, thereafter, necessary repairs were carried out. Plaintiffs or their father had never objected and even no objection was raised when the said construction/repair was made out. On merits, it was submitted that land of khasra no.115 was owned by Jumla Malkan wa digar Hakdarn Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat and it cannot be owned by the plaintiffs only. The plaintiffs nowhere explained how they become exclusive owners of the suit land. Defendants were also proprietors of the village and Jumla Malkan. It was, further denied that in absence of plaintiffs in December, 2001, the answering defendants in collusion with each other occupied the suit land illegally as well as forcibly. Rather the defendants were in possession and had constructed their houses for the last more than 20 years over the suit land. With these submissions, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 3 RSA No.290 of 2009 (O&M) 4. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.9, it was submitted by the answering respondent that land of khasra no.115 was owned by Jumla Malkan wa digar Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakab Khewat and it cannot be owned by the plaintiffs only. It had nowhere explained by the plaintiffs how they became exclusive owner of the suit land. The defendants were also proprietors of the village and Jumla Malkan. It was denied by the answering defendant that in absence of plaintiff in December, 2001, the answering defendant in collusion with each other occupied the suit land illegally as well as forcibly. Rather defendants were in possession and have constructed their houses for the last more than 20 years over the suit land. The answering defendant had also taken the preliminary objections such as bad for want of court fee, jurisdiction and the suit has not been properly verified.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit land ?OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of ad valorem court fee? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. OPD 6. Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as alleged. OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. 4 RSA No.290 of 2009 (O&M) The plaintiffs had claimed ownership qua property in dispute on the ground that they had purchased the land in dispute from Sardar Sibia in the year 1973-74. However, the said sale deed was not proved on record by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, learned courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they have come in to the possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 18.12.2009 sd 5