R.S.A. No. 3551 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3551 of 2011 Date of decision:- 07.11.2011 Rajmati and others ...Appellants Versus Rajender ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate for the appellants. RITU BAHRI J. This regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani and the judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants that he is owner in possession 1/4th share i.e. 1 Kanal 8- ½ marlas land (suit land) which had fallen to his share in mutual partition. The suit land is a Nohra and plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the same. The defendants had took up the plea in written statement that this suit land was purchased by them on 13.11.1985 from Jhabbu, Tarif and Matu sons of Ramji Lal. A writing was made in the Bahi of defendants. They had taken possession of the land from the said Jhabbu and since then they are in continuous possession for the last 16 years. On 01.12.2001 the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? R.S.A. No. 3551 of 2011 -2- 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether defendants are owners in possession of suit land by virtue of writing made in Bahi dated 13.11.1985?OPD 4. Whether defendants have become full-fledged owners of suit land by way of adverse possession?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 8. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 10. Whether suit is bad for want of court fees? OPD 11. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 12. Relief. The plaintiff has tendered in evidence copy of jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (Ex.P1) wherein he alongwith Jhabu Singh, Matu Singh and Tarif were shown to be co-sharers in possession of the suit land. This document as per Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 carries a presumption of truth supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendants produced copy of Bahi (Ex.D1) to show that a plot in Bahi was agreed to be sold by Jhabhu, Matu and Tarif for value of Rs.5750/- on 13.11.1985. In the Bahi no khasra number of the plot in dispute has been mentioned. In the Bahi there are entries that Ranjit had given money to the vendors. The defendants examined DW1 Rajmati, DW2 Labh Singh, who identified the writing of Abhay Singh in the Bahi (Ex.D1). The trial Court while deciding issue Nos.1,2 and 3 came to a conclusion that as per entries in Ex.P1 the plaintiff had proved that he had been R.S.A. No. 3551 of 2011 -3- recorded owner in possession of 1/4th share of the suit land. As regards Bahi entries (Ex.D1) the trial Court held that it did not carry in khasra number of the land, which was to be sold to the defendants. This entry has never been registered and this document does not show that the possession was delivered by the vendors to Ranjit on the basis of these entries. The Bahi (Ex.D1) was held not sufficient to rebut the presumption in favour of the entries in copy of jamabandi Ex.P1. These issues were decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.4 that defendant had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession was decided against the defendants on the ground that the title of plaintiff is deemed to be admitted where a plea of adverse possession is raised by the defendants. The defendants failed to prove that they were occupying the suit land for a long time within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Issue Nos.5,6,9 and 11 were held in favour of the plaintiff that the suit was maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff had come to the court with clean hands and has not suppressed the material facts. As regards issue Nos.7,8 and 10 the defendants did not lead any evidence, hence, these were decided against the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff. On appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed. The case set up by the respondents was examined on the basis of Bahi entries (Ex.D1). It was found that no particulars of land had been mentioned in the Bahi. The entry did not reflect the target date for execution of the sale deed. As per Bahi entries date of sale was 13.11.1985 and the instant suit was filed on 1.12.2001, the fact that the defendants did not take any step for getting the sale deed executed has gone against them. The plea of adverse possession taken by the defendants-appellants was held to be in consistent with each other. The plea of adverse possession begins by accepting that title of the property is with the person claiming adverse possession. R.S.A. No. 3551 of 2011 -4- A perusal of both the judgments goes to show that the defendants' case was based primarily on the basis of Bahi entries dated 13.11.1985. Their case was that the suit land has been sold to them way-back in the year 1985 and they are in possession and have become absolute owners by way of adverse possession. They have indirectly admitted that plaintiff was the owner of the suit land once they seek ownership by way of adverse possession. The evidence led by the plaintiff Ex.P1 jamabandi for the year 1997-98 which shows that plaintiff was co-sharer with Jhabbu, Tarif and Matu in 1/4th share of the suit land is an evidence sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendants have miserably failed to lead any evidence. The defendants could not lead evidence to prove that the sale deed executed on 13.11.1985 was duly registered. They did not take any steps before filing of the suit on 1.12.2001 to get the sale deed executed or registered in their favour. In the Bahi entry (Ex.D1) no khasra number has been mentioned about the land sought to be sold. On the basis of evidence led, the finding recorded by both the courts does not require any interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court in the present appeal. The regular second appeal is dismissed. 07.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE