IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 421 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.2.2009 Smt.Bimla Devi and others … Appellants. Versus Shiv Ram and others … Respondents Present: Mr. N.L.Sammi, Advocate, for the appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Appellants before this Court are the defendants, who have concurrently lost before the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for possession has been decreed and defendants 1 to 6 have been directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendants No. 7 and 8. Plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession on the basis of title, by stating that the defendants were in unauthorized possession of the suit land. They stated that they have already been declared owners of the suit land vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.2001. In that suit, the relief of permanent injunction was not granted to them by the trial Court while holding that they were not in possession but they were declared to be owners. The said decree was never challenged by the defendants. Therefore, after the death of their father Mukandi who was a party to that suit, the plaintiffs inherited the property. Defendants contested the present suit thereby denying the claim of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have concurrently found that a perusal of judgment dated 1.5.2001, Exhibit P-1, passed in the earlier suit, shows that the plaintiffs were held to be owners but not in possession and therefore, being the owners, they were given liberty to seek possession as per law. The plea of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiffs did not prefer the suit for possession within 12 years of alleged dispossession, did not find favour with the Courts below and it has been held that practically, there is no limitation on the basis of title since as per existing law, the limitation would be 12 years from the date the possession RSA No. 421 of 2009 -2- of the other party became adverse. Further, as per judgment, Exhibit P-1, the defendants had not become owners by adverse possession. The Courts below have held that if at all the defendants had felt aggrieved, they could have filed an appeal against the judgment, Ex.P-1, passed in the earlier suit, so as to agitate the point regarding having acquired title by way of adverse possession but they did not file any. Thus, the said judgment and decree had attained finality and therefore, they could not re-agitate the said issue again in the present suit. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs has been held to be within limitation. For this, reliance has been placed upon judgments in Indira v. Arumugam and another, 1998(2) P.L.J. 109 and Ishwar Devi and another v. M/s Elite Electrical Industries, 1984(2) R.L.R. 605. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. February 4, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE