RSA No. 1462 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 4356-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1462 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: March 11 , 2010 Ajit Ram and others ...... Appellants Versus Asha Rani and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. **** 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. CM No. 4356-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 50 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1462 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to hand over the possession of the house in dispute. As per the case of respondents, the house in dispute was allotted to Darshan Ram after partition and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants being a relation was permitted to stay in a portion thereof. As per RSA No. 1462 of 2009(O&M) 2 respondents, respondent No.1 had issued notice in the year 2001 terminating the licence of the appellant and directing them to hand over the vacant possession of the property to her. The plea taken by the appellants was that in the year 1968 the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had purchased the share of the house in his possession from the allottee. The second plea taken was that in any case the appellants had become owners by way of adverse possession. The third plea taken was that the suit was barred by limitation. As regards the first plea both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the said document (Ex.D1) not being registered could not be read into evidence. As regards the plea of adverse possession the Courts below relied upon the statement of the father of the appellants who, in his turn, had stated that his father viz. Babu Ram was permitted to stay in the house in dispute by his cousin Darshan Ram. As regards the plea of limitation the Courts said that from the date of termination of the licence the suit was within limitation. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether both the Courts below have committed a grave legal error in law in ignoring Ex.D1 which proves that the house in dispute was already sold to appellant No.1? ii)Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate the case is time barred? iii)Whether both the Courts below have illegally and wrongly ignored that appellants have become the owner of property in dispute by adverse possession? iv)Whether the Courts below have illegally ignored the well settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court? v) Whether the lower Courts have failed to appreciate the RSA No. 1462 of 2009(O&M) 3 evidence and facts proved on the record? The findings of the Courts below and the reason on which they have based the said findings with regard to questions No(.i), (ii) and (iii) have been mentioned above. In my opinion there is no error of law or fact so as to justify interference. Questions no. (iv) and (v) are general questions. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 11, 2010 sunita