IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 294 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.2.2010 Ram Kanwar and others. ....... Appellants. Versus Satya Kishan and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiffs, in this second appeal, have assailed the judgments & decrees dated 12.4.2001 and 29.10.2005 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Rewari (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') in the suit filed by them for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that in the revenue record, the names of the mortgagees were being shown in the column of cultivation, R.S.A.No.294 of 2006 (O&M) -2- .... which is wrong since they were in possession of the suit property for last more than fifty years and that by virtue of their possession, they have become owners thereof. The defendants, now respondents, appeared and contested the suit. They denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It was pleaded by them that mere suit for declaration without the relief of possession is not maintainable. They defended the revenue entries in their favour qua the suit property. The plea of limitation was also raised. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff become (sic. the plaintiffs have become) owner of disputed land by way of adverse possession, if so, to what effect/OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has (sic. The plaintiffs have) no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by his (sic. their) own act & conduct?OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 7. Relief. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit as well as the appeal of the plaintiffs and did not record any finding of possession in their favour. While assailing the judgments of the trial Court and the first R.S.A.No.294 of 2006 (O&M) -3- .... appellant Court, in the instant appeal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that Exhibit P5 is the document which has been totally ignored by the Courts below, which showed their possession and, therefore, the findings recorded therein are totally perverse. He further contended that Exhibit D7/T shows the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in the year 1961 and from this, their possession could have been inferred by the Courts below while recording the findings. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and have perused the impugned judgments, as also the records of the Courts below which was summoned. Exhibit D7/T on which primary reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention, unfortunately, does not support their case at all. A perusal of Exhibit D7/T reveals that at the foot of this document, it has been recorded that the suit land stood mortgaged with possession in favour of Bhim Raj, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. Thus, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants stands belied. Exhibit D7/T is a mutation which was never challenged by the appellants or their predecessor- in-interest. There is no material on record from where the possession of the appellants over the suit property can be inferred. In any eventuality, this is a pure question of fact which has been determined by the Courts below by appreciating the evidence on record. This Court is loathe to reappraise the evidence and in any case, as observed earlier, there is no material to indicate the possession of the appellants over the suit property. R.S.A.No.294 of 2006 (O&M) -4- .... That apart, the suit was filed with a plea that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession, which is a failing plea in the eyes of law and cannot be asserted in the affirmative by filing a suit,although it can be raised in defence with requisite and necessary particulars required to be pleaded in support of such a plea. No substantial question of law arises for consideration oif this Court. Hence, the instant appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. February 18,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge