Regular Second Appeal No. 2779 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2779 of 2007. Date of Decision: 17.4.2009 *** Arjan Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Nanto & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal. Both the Courts below have non-suited them in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that their father Hari Singh forcibly took the possession of the suit land measuring 18 kanal 18 marlas from its owner Santa Singh (since deceased), now represented by respondents, in the year 1969 and started cultivating the same and after his death in the year 1992 they came into possession of the suit land and their hostile, long and uninterrupted possession has matured into the ownership of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Admittedly, Hari Singh, during his lifetime had not claimed his ownership over the suit land through adverse possession by way of filing the suit. The plaintiffs, as per their own case, came into the possession of the suit land in the year 1992 after the death of their father Hari Singh and they filed the suit just after four years in the year 1996, meaning thereby the requisite period of 12 years' possession was not to their credit. Although, as per revenue record Hari Singh was shown in possession of the suit property since 1967-68 up to the year 1992 and after that the plaintiffs, but the revenue record also reflected their possession as “deemed sale”, leading to the conclusion that if there was any Regular Second Appeal No. 2779 of 2007 2 transaction in respect of the suit land between Hari Singh and the original owner, though the same was not proved on record by the plaintiff, their possession was with the permission of the owner thereof and permissive possession can never be a hostile possession, maturing into their ownership. It was also held that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and as such are not entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land. It is, thus abundantly clear that the Courts below while evaluating the material on record rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 17,2009 Jiten