R.S.A.No. 500 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 500 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Manjit Singh ......Appellant Versus Tara Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the property in dispute had been allotted to the plaintiff vide allotment letter dated 27.11.1980. Plaintiff had constructed a boundary wall and had also constructed a room, kitchen and bathroom in the suit property. A gate has also been affixed by the plaintiff in the suit property. Initially the plaintiff had used the premises for his residential purpose but later on he had rented out the same to Lakhwinder Singh at a R.S.A.No. 500 of 2010 (O&M) 2 monthly rent of ` 200/- . Defendants were threatening to tether their cattle in the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. The defendants had been tethering their cattle in the suit property since long and had also been storing cow dung, fuel etc. in the suit property. The possession of the defendants over the suit property was open hostile to the whole worlds since the year 1978. Neither the plaintiff nor any other person had ever raised any objection regarding the possession of the defendants over the suit property. The defendants had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendants had constructed a boundary wall over the suit property. The plaintiff was the brother-in-law of defendant No.4 Jarnail Singh and used to reside in the suit property with him whenever he came to the village. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is in possession over the disputed property? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ? OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 500 of 2010 (O&M) 3 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit ? OPD 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is false frivolous if so its effect? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006. Appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Barnala. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that merely because the defendants had taken the plea of adverse possession did not lead to the inference that the appellant had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ram Kishan vs. Bhagwan Sarup Nagar 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 440. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit property had been allotted to the plaintiff and he was owner of the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, proved on record R.S.A.No. 500 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Ex.P-1 conveyance deed, vide which he had become owner of the suit property. The defendants, on the other hand, have not claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property nor have stated as to who was the owner of the suit property. The defendants claimed that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Merely because the defendants were placing cow dung cakes or tethering their cattle in the suit property does not lead to the inference that they were in actual possession of the suit property. The Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that the defendants had failed to establish that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had established his ownership by proving on record the conveyance deed Ex.P-1 executed in his favour. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is based on different facts. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita