IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1676 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2011. Swaran Singh and another ...... APPELLANTS Versus Smt. Bhagwant Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurpratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.4645-C of 2011 Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 117 days in re-filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. C.M. No.4646-C of 2011. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1676 of 2011. RSA No.1676 of 2011(O&M) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana partly allowing the appeal filed by the present appellants- plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for decree of declaration to the effect that they have become owners by way of adverse possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the land in dispute in any manner and from changing the nature of the same i.e. 17 shares in khasra numbers duly described in the head-note of the plaint. Plea has been taken that since 1960 the present appellants-plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest have been continuing in possession of the land in dispute without any interruption and hence, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants did not appear and hence, they were proceeded ex parte. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them against the said judgment and decree was partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the possession of the plaintiffs is not as co-owners 2 RSA No.1676 of 2011(O&M) and that it has been wrongly observed by the learned trial Court that they are in possession as co-owners. However, it is the case of appellants-plaintiffs themselves that they are in possession of 17 shares in the entire khasra numbers for the last more than 12 years. Moreover, appeal filed by the present appellants- plaintiffs has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana and the respondents-defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the present appellants-plaintiffs from the land in dispute except in due course of law. Moreover, the law is well settled that a suit for declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable. Plea of adverse possession can be taken only as a defence in the suit filed by other party. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 14, 2011 JUDGE Sachin M. 3