C.M.No.8889-C of 2010 in RSA No.2976 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.8889-C of 2010 in RSA No.2976 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 19, 2011 Malwinder Singh .....Appellant v. Bhagwan Kaur @ Roopi Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Guram, Advocate for Mr.K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8889-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 40 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2976 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 1.4.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree dated 10.4.2007, passed by learned trial Court, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking C.M.No.8889-C of 2010 in RSA No.2976 of 2010(O&M) -2- declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that earlier his grand father Lal Singh remained in possession of the land in dispute and that possession of his grant father was open, hostile, continuous uniterrupted and after Lal Singh, he came in possession on the basis of a Will and that he has become owner by way of adverse possession. Admitted facts are that parties are co-owners. Hence, it has been rightly observed by both the Courts below that exclusive possession of appellant-plaintiff, one of the co-owner on a specific portion of a joint holding never ripen into title over the said part of the joint holding. Moreover Lal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present appellant-plaintiff, had also filed a suit earlier seeking declaration of his ownership in view of alleged family settlement. However, the said plea was not accepted and suit filed by Lal Singh was partly decreed to the extent that he was in exclusive possession of the land in dispute and his remaining claim was dismissed even upto this Court. It was only held that he was in exclusive possession of land in dispute as co-owner. Hence, it has been rightly observed that the said finding operates as res judicata in the present suit filed by appellant- plaintiff, who claims through Lal Singh. Moreover, the very suit filed by appellant-plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession is also not legally maintainable. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by 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 misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does C.M.No.8889-C of 2010 in RSA No.2976 of 2010(O&M) -3- not warrant interference in 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. 19.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge