IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 3917-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1324 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.3.2009 Sohan Lal … Appellant Versus Bhajan and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 3917-C of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 1324 of 2009: This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed. Plaintiff in the present suit claims himself to be owner in possession of suit land, as described in the plaint, which is hostile and uninterrupted to the knowledge of the defendants. He alleged that about 50 years ago, father of the defendant, namely, Bishan Dass had taken a sum of Rs.100/- as loan from plaintiff’s father and since he failed to repay the loan amount, the father of the plaintiff took possession of the suit land forcibly and from that period onwards, remained in possession. After the death of his father, plaintiff is continuing in possession. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants by taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record in the column of ownership, were staking their claim as owners of the suit land. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement denied that possession over the suit land was of the plaintiff and that his possession is adverse, hostile and uninterrupted. They further denied that their father ever took any loan from the father of the plaintiff, as alleged. RSA No. 1324 of 2009 -2- Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, did not find any merit in the contentions of the plaintiff and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree, was also dismissed by the first appellate Court as per judgment and decree dated 15.3.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have returned a concurrent finding of fact that to substantiate his claim regarding possession, the plaintiff could not bring on record even a single piece of documentary evidence, which fact stood admitted since he himself sought rectification of the entries in the revenue record. Not even a single witness, except his bald statement, has been produced by the plaintiff to prove if any loan of Rs.100/- was ever taken by the father of the defendants in his presence due to which plaintiff’s father took forcible possession of the suit land. Further more, no date whatsoever has been mentioned as to when the adverse possession, as alleged, started and in what way it was hostile and interrupted. Plaintiff has further been found to be in the habit of filing civil suits as evident from copy of judgment, Exhibit P-4, that is to say, some times, he claims to be owner of only 6 marlas of suit land and sometimes, he claims to be owner of the entire khasra number measuring 3 kanals 1 marla. It has been observed that statedly, there are two rooms existing in the disputed plot but the plaintiff did not know their measurement. So much so, PW-2 Bhajan Singh even could not tell as to how many marlas were there in one kanal. Resultantly, it has rightly been held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his possession or ownership over the land in dispute. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 25, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE