RSA No. 616 of 2004 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 616 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2009 Mange Ram and others ...... Appellants Versus Rajbir Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.K,.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. N.R.Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.3, 4, 6, 8, 18, 24, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,51, 46 and 59. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court and thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for declaration that they are joint owners in possession with the appellants in the land in dispute. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the suit is prima facie time barred and the learned RSA No. 616 of 2004 (O&M) 2 first Appellate Court has taken wrong approach to the entire matter on record? ii)Whether the learned First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of learned trial court on perverse ground and without any cogent reasons? iii)Whether the plaintiff cannot be a co-sharer of the land in dispute on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of possession and declaration in respect of the lease deed executed on 20.10.1998 after more than 12 years? iv)Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and the suit has correctly been dismissed by the learned trial court and the findings recorded by the learned trial court are liable to be restored and affirmed and the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside? Questions No. (i) and (iii) are related. The argument is that the plaintiff-respondents had not pleaded that they were co-sharers with the appellants and thus could not have been held to be so. However, I find that the learned lower Appellate Court has held the appellants as well as the plaintiff-respondents to be co-sharers on the basis of a specific plea in this regard taken in the written statement by the appellants themselves as well as on the basis of the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed these facts. In the circumstances I find no infirmity with the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that the appellants and the plaintiff- respondents are co-sharers in the land. Once this is held, the decision on question No. (i) which has been taken by the learned lower Appellate Court also has to be affirmed. The learned lower Appellate Court has noticed that in the Jamabandies right from 1959 to 1995 the appellants and the plaintiff- RSA No. 616 of 2004 (O&M) 3 respondents were recorded as co-owners in the land. The plea of adverse possession could not be established and in view of these continuous entries the suit could not have been held to be barred by limitation. Questions No. (ii) and (iv) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render them perverse. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) ` JUDGE August 25, 2009 sunita