IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4338 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.4.2009 Smt. Jahida … Appellant. Versus. Lakhmi Chand and others … Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration with mandatory injunction has been dismissed. Plaintiff brought the present suit pleading therein that she was in occupation of the suit land 40 years prior to the filing of the suit and she constructed her house thereon and is in occupation thereof since then. She got installed an electricity meter and further holds a ration card issued by the Food and Supplies Department. She claims herself to be owner of the said property by adverse possession. But defendants have forcibly demolished the construction raised by her upon the suit property. She thus sought a direction to defendants No.3 and 4 to reconstruct the rooms in the suit property. Upon notice of the suit, defendants 1 and 2 did not contest the suit and were thus, proceed against ex-parte. Defendants 3 and 4 on appearance filed written statement wherein possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was denied. It was stated that the suit land along with other land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 7.10.1982 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further stated that a notice was issued to the plaintiff as she was raising unauthorized construction over the acquired land without any right or title. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide its RSA No. 4338 of 2008 -2- judgment and decree dated 24.10.2006 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff went in appeal which too was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties, have observed that in support of her claim, only plaintiff has given her bald statement as PW-1 reiterating the averments made by her in the plaint. Being the plaintiff herself she is naturally expected to depose in her favour and thus, she is an interested witness. Therefore, in absence of any corroborative independent evidence, her sole testimony could not be relied upon. Further, the documents produced on record by the plaintiff, viz., copies of Jamabandi (Mark P-1), ration card (Mark P-2), identity-card (Mark P3), voter identity-card (Mark P4) and electricity bills (Mark P5) to Mark P8), do not prove her possession over the suit land for the last 40 years as alleged. Thus, the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that she became owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 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. April 18, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE