In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 4092 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:October 29, 2010 Bhim Singh and others ---Appellants versus Peera Ram ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 12293-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. R.S.A.No. 4092 of 2010(O&M) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants- defendants after having lost in the first appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Asandh, dated 17.12.2007, vide which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed for possession of the land in dispute. The only relevant fact for deciding the present appeal is that the R.S.A. No. 4092 of 2010(O&M) -2- defendants took up the plea before the trial court that their possession being adverse had matured into ownership. However, on the basis of the evidence, so produced by the parties, finding was recorded against the defendants by the trial court, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. It has been submitted by counsel for the defendants that the lower courts failed to appreciate the fact that khasra girdawari was ordered to be corrected in the name of the defendants vide order Ex. D-6 and their possession came to be recorded as bila lagaan bewaja najayaj kabja. After such an entry was made, the possession of the defendants was adverse to the true owner and by the efflux of period of 12 years, they became the owners. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the defendants that previously also, civil suit was instituted on 27.3.1999 regarding the land in dispute, which was decided on 18.5.2001 and at that time, the defendants were not found to be in possession of the land in dispute. There is no such misreading of the evidence by the lower courts not it can be said that the findings recorded are perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 29, 2010 PARAMJIT