RSA No. 1452 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1452 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.10.2009 Dharampal and others .....Appellants Vs. Ram Kumar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.K.Kansal,Advocate for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J CM No.4339-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 40 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.1452 of 2009 The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 31.7.2006 and 22.9.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind and the learned Additional District Judge-I, Jind, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for possession regarding land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas bearing Khasra No.169/73 situated in Village Ashrafgarh, Tehsil and District Jind. The plaintiffs pleaded that the RSA No. 1452 of 2009 2 suit land forms a part of 2 kanals 6 marlas of land owned by them. During the demarcation of the suit land, it transpired that the defendants/appellants have encroached upon the suit land. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession be passed. In response, the appellants pleaded that they purchased the suit land by an oral sale from the plaintiff/respondents on 1.4.1965 after paying a sum of Rs.99/-. After purchasing the suit land, they have constructed a house. It was further pleaded that they have become owners by adverse possession. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that as the respondents are owners of the suit land, they are entitled to a decree for possession. It was further held that the appellants have failed, to prove the oral sale or to satisfactorily plead and prove the ingredients of adverse possession. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 31.7.2006, passed by the trial court, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 22.9.2008, the learned Additional District Judge-I, Jind dismissed the appeal. At the initial stage of the appeal, counsel for the appellants made an offer that as the appellants have constructed a house, they are ready to pay the cost of the land or provide equal land to the respondents. This offer was, however, rejected by the respondents. Counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have misread material evidence and have wrongly held that the respondents are owners of the suit land. It is argued that even if their plea of a oral sale is rejected, the plea of ownership by adverse possession should have been accepted, as the appellants are in possession since the year 1965. RSA No. 1452 of 2009 3 Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the appellants have failed to prove their ownership by an oral sale or by adverse possession. The trial court, therefore, rightly decreed their suit for possession and the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. It is argued that the plea of adverse possession, inhers an admission of the respondents ownership and in the absence of any pleadings or evidence to establish the ingredients of adverse possession, the appeal should be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements and fail to discern any error, as would raise a substantial question of law. The respondents filed a suit for possession claiming ownership. The appellants asserted their ownership on the basis of an oral sale dated 1.4.1965 for a consideration of Rs.99/-. In addition, they pleaded that they have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession. Both the courts below have rejected the plea of an oral sale by holding that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence to prove the sale. The deposition of Muni Ram, appellant no.5 as DW-1 was rejected on the ground that on the date of the alleged sale he was 17 years old. The deposition of DW-3 Ram Sarup, an alleged witness to the sale, was rejected by holding that he has deposed that the transaction took place in the year 1975 and that the land was sold to Phullu and not to the appellants. With regard to the plea of adverse possession, the courts below have held that the averments in the written statement and the evidence adduced do not satisfy the ingredients of a plea of adverse possession, as the electricity bills Ex.D-10 to D-14 do not relate to the land in dispute. RSA No. 1452 of 2009 4 I find no reason to hold that the conclusions recorded by the courts below are incorrect or suffer from any error or law. The appellants have failed to establish their plea of ownership by way of an oral sale or by adverse possession. In the absence of any pleadings or evidence to establish the ingredients of adverse possession, namely; open, hostile continuous possession to the knowledge and exclusion of the true owner with intent to oust his title, the trial court rightly decreed the suit of the respondents and dismissed the appeal of the appellants. In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 26.10.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE