REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 5068 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 5068 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 22, 2010 Karam Singh .... Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Navin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. **** L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.14922-C of 2010 This is application for condonation of delay of 541 days in refiling the appeal. Heard. File perused. It is alleged in the application that the appeal was filed within limitation but there is delay of 541 days in refiling the appeal and the said delay is unintentional and bonafide. Obviously these averments taken at face value are not sufficient to condone the inordinate long delay of almost 18 months in refiling the appeal. No ground, whatsoever, has been pleaded in the application for the aforesaid long delay. The application is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. RSA No. 5068 of 2010 Since application for condonation of delay in refiling the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 5068 of 2010 (O&M) -2- appeal has been dismissed, the instant appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground. However, even on merits, the appellant has not made out a case for interference. These are two connected second appeals i.e. RSA No.5068 of 2010 and RSA No.5069 of 2010 both titled Karam Singh Versus Gram Panchayat. These appeals have been filed by defendant-Karam Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. These appeals have arisen out of two separate suits instituted by plaintiff-respondent Gram Panchayat against defendant-appellant Karam Singh. In Civil Suit No.73-T of 2007/1999, the plaintiff alleged that it is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Biswas 4 Biswansis comprised of Khasra No.787/1. Defendant has no concern with the suit property but he wanted to encroach upon the same by raising construction. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction over the suit land. In second suit No.188 of 1999, the plaintiff alleged that defendant wanted to obstruct the flow of water through the same suit land by raising construction. Permanent injunction was sought against the same. The defendant resisted both the suits and inter alia pleaded that he is in possession of the suit property to the extent of 110 feet 8 inches X 11 feet, which has been enclosed by boundary wall by his forefathers about 47 years ago and now the defendant is in possession thereof. His possession being continuous, open and hostile, he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff is not in possession thereof. Plaintiff is recorded to be owner of the suit land in the revenue REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 5068 of 2010 (O&M) -3- record, but plaintiff is not in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fategarh Sahib vide common judgement dated 30.01.2008 decreed both the suits. First appeals preferred by defendant in both the suits have been dismissed by learned District Judge, Fategarh Sahib vide common judgement dated 21.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeals arising out of both the suits. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that defendant- appellant is in possession of the suit property and has raised construction therein. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly in revenue record, plaintiff-respondent Gram Panchayat is recorded to be owner as well as in possession of the suit property throughout. Consequently merely on the basis of oral evidence, it cannot be said that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. Moreover, the defendant has taken the plea that he has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. However, his possession over the suit property is not proved and it cannot be said at all that his possession over the suit property has been over more than 12 years before the filing of the suit. On the contrary, entries in Jamabandi carry presumption of correctness. Entries in Jamabandis negative the aforesaid claim of the defendant-appellant. Since plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and it is not even remotely proved that defendant has become its owner by adverse possession, suits of the plaintiff-Gram REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 5068 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Panchayat have been rightly decreed by the courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgements of the courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeals. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse of illegal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid I find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE December 22, 2010 'raj'