R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.2.2009 Ajeet Singh ....Appellant Versus Ajit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 2.5.2006. The plaintiff/appellant claimed that he was the owner of the suit property and the respondents were trying to dispossess him forcibly. It was the case of the appellant that he had become owner of the suit land on the basis of the civil court decrees Ex.P-9 and Ex.P- 10 which The Ambala Scheduled Caste Vimukt Jati Co-operative Agricultural Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Ambala had suffered in his favour. He pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property since 1958 and that the Society had purchased the land measuring 757 R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) -2- kanals 3 marlas including the suit land from Mohinder Singh son of Jagat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.1958. He pleaded that the suit land along with other land was under his cultivation but due to some bona fide clerical mistake the suit land remained to be transferred in the name of the appellant but other land had been transferred. It was next pleaded that some other persons might have purchased the land from the Society and erroneously the suit land might have been sold to them as well. He made an application for correction of the khasra girdawri which was allowed and the necessary correction in the revenue record was made in January, 1997 and Fard Badar was accordingly prepared. The respondents, who contested the suit, pleaded that the suit property had been purchased by them on 1.5.1959 by way of registered sale deed and the appellant had filed a suit relating to the suit land but the same was dismissed. It was further pleaded that the mutation regarding the suit land had been entered in their names and they had been recorded as owners of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1985-86. It was next pleaded that the revenue officers were not competent to make any correction in the jamabandi and it was only the civil court which was competent to do so. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land since the year 1958?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession?OPP 3. If either of issues No.1 and 2 are proved, then R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) -3- whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ?OPP 4. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land?OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred u/s 11 CPC?OPD 6. Relief. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant regarding injunction but in so far as the ownership was concerned, it was concluded that the appellant had failed to prove his ownership over the suit property. It is also worthwhile to mention that the appellant had also claimed ownership by way of adverse possession, which was declined by the trial Court. An appeal followed by the appellant and the respondents preferred cross-objections regarding the finding of possession recorded by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court accepted the cross-objections and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. This has resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court regarding possession is erroneous. It was contended that the revenue record has totally been ignored by the first Appellate Court while returning a finding on possession. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the first Appellate Court was perfectly in order for the reason that the appellant had tried to prove his ownership on the basis of civil court decrees Ex.P-9 and P-10. A R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) -4- perusal of these decrees did not reveal the details of the suit land which was sought to be explained by the appellant by saying that it was a result of clerical mistake. However, such a mistake was not got rectified by him nor proved on record. He contended that the finding of possession is also correct for the reason that a stray entry has been recorded in the year 1997. It was further contended that the finding of possession is correct and no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. The appellant tried to set up his case on the basis of two decrees alleging that the Society had suffered the same in his favour conferring ownership upon him. He also pleaded ownership by way of adverse possession. These two pleas are mutually destructive of each other. Once the plea of ownership is raised the appellant cannot say that he was owner by way of adverse possession. The ownership was claimed under the Society which was not impleaded as a party. If the case of the appellant regarding possession is to be accepted, then also the Society was a necessary party, which was not done. In so far as the possession is concerned, the entry made in 1997 in his favour has not been explained as to how the same was recorded in his favour especially when the decrees on the basis of which he claimed ownership do not mention the details of the land. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that any notice had been issued to the respondents. Since this entry has not been explained, it cast a serious doubt as to the factum of possession of the appellant. In any R.S.A. No. 4339 of 2006 (O&M) -5- eventuality, this is a pure finding of fact which has been recorded by the first Appellate Court. Since no substantial question of law has been shown, the appeal is totally devoid of merit and is dismissed. That apart, the appeal is barred by an inordinate delay of 106 days, which has also not been explained satisfactorily. 18.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss