IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2424 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011. Ran Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Smt. Sugnabai and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.6675-C of 2011 Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.6676-C of 2011 The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. RSA No.2424 of 2011 RSA No.2424 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bhiwani vide which suit filed by appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed for a decree for declaration to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff has become owner of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession and the defendants have no concern or connection, right or title with the same. Suit filed by appellant- plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court by observing that plea of adverse possession is available as a defence or shield and cannot be taken as ground to claim ownership over the suit land. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less 2 RSA No.2424 of 2011 substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 15, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3