IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1706 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.4.2010 Ram Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Joginder Singh and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.5147-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.1706 of 2010 & C.M.No.5148-C of 2010 One of the defendants, namely, Ram Singh, has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 21.3.2009 and 18.2.2010 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa and the Additional District Judge, Mansa. C.M.No.5148-C of 2010 has been moved for staying the operation of the impugned judgments/ decrees during the pendency of the appeal. R.S.A.No.1706 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... In May,2001, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 had filed a suit against the defendants, i.e., Ram Singh and Darshan Singh sons of Darbara Singh, for possession of land measuring 12 kanals and 7 marlas as detailed in the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was owner of the land in question and was dispossessed forcibly by the defendants about two months back. It was averred that previously the defendants had filed civil suit no.283 of 12.11.1998 for permanent injunction but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 5.2.2001 as they were not in possession of the suit land and that thereafter, they dispossessed him illegally. The defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that they along with their two other brothers,namely, Baggar Singh and Jagdev Singh were in possession of the suit land since the year 1970 without payment of any rent etc. and this was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Thus, the adverse possession was pleaded. It was averred that since Baggar Singh and Jagdev Singh have not been arrayed as defendants, the suit was bad for non-joinder of proper parties. They also claimed special costs. As many as six issues were framed out of which issue nos.1, 4 and 5 are relevant, which are extracted below:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD R.S.A.No.1706 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... Both the Courts below have returned the findings against the defendants and decreed the suit of the plaintiff which has resulted in the filing of the Regular Second Appeal in which it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings contained in the impugned judgments are perverse and contrary to the record and deserve to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appeal is without any merit. The revenue record pertaining to the years 1997-98 to 2002-03 as well as Sanand Takshim dated 23.12.1994 indicate the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. A conclusive finding regarding the plaintiff being in possession of the suit land in the year 1993 and 1997 has been recorded by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record which belied the claim of the defendants that they were in continuous possession of the suit land since the year 1970 to the knowledge of the plaintiff and which possession was open and hostile. Since the revenue record speaks to the contrary, it is indicative of the fact that the defendants were the usurpers of the suit land and were in unauthorised possession. No material has been shown to this Court from which it could be inferred that the defendants were in possession of the suit land since the year 1970 as had been pleaded by them. For the aforesaid reason when the evidence of the defendants is totally bereft of the substance which they had pleaded, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No.1706 of 2010 (O&M) -4- .... Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the application for stay is also dismissed. April 30,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge