IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3289 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Prem Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Daljit Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, while accepting the appeal of defendant-respondents, the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration of his title on the basis of adverse possession was set aside resulting into dismissal of the suit of the appellant. This Court in Bhim Singh & ors. v. Zile Singh & ors. 2006 (3) RCR Civil 97 has laid down that suit for declaration of title filed by the plaintiff on the plea of adverse possession is not maintainable. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of this Court, RSA No.3909 of 2008 (State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & others) was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2009. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondar Singh and Ors. v. Nihal Singh 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 222 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his title on the basis of adverse possession is maintainable, is of no help to the appellant as in this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not dealing with such a plea. RSA No.3289 of 2008 -2- It may be relevant to mention at this stage that in Mukesh Kumar's case (supra), counsel for the plaintiff-appellant had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur Dead v. O.V. Narasimha Setty 2007 (2) RCR 313 and had contended that the plea of adverse possession can be taken up by the plaintiff and such a suit is maintainable. However, the aforesaid contention of the appellant was not accepted by this Court as in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that such a suit of the plaintiff on the plea of adverse possession was maintainable as no plea regarding maintainability of such a suit was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. September 22, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE