Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2008 Date of decision : November 22, 2010 Inder ....Appellant versus Gram Panchayat, Village Phurlak and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. GS Hooda, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Mr. RKS Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent nos. 2 to 5 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Inder having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff alleged that earlier his father was in possession of the suit land measuring 28 kanals and after his death in the year 1999, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land without any interruption. Defendants have no concern with the suit land. Defendant no. 1 – Gram Panchayat has given the suit land to defendants no. 4 and 5 (Officers of Forest Department of State of Haryana-defendant no. 2), who want to plant Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2008 -2- trees in the suit land. Plaintiff claimed to have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom and from planting trees in the suit land. Defendant no. 1 – Gram Panchayat denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that defendant no. 1 is owner as well as in possession of the suit land through pattedars/lessees since the year 1997-98. It was denied that plaintiff is cultivating the suit land. Defendant no. 1 has given suit land to Forest Department for planting trees. Defendants no. 2 to 5 also broadly took the same stand as that of defendant no. 1. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the suit land in view of entries in revenue record depicting possession of plaintiff's father as pattedar and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and there is no Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2008 -3- document depicting possession of the plaintiff. It was also contended that plaintiff has not even alleged as to in what capacity he was in possession of the suit land and since when. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiff has alleged that he has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and that defendants have no concern therewith. However, record produced by the plaintiff himself depicts that Gram Panchayat defendant no. 1 is owner of the suit land. The plaintiff, thus, falsely averred that defendants have no concern with the suit land. The plaintiff has not challenged vesting of the suit land in Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff, thus, made false averment in the plaint that defendants have no concern with the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief of permanent injunction. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land by adverse possession. However, there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff's possession over the suit land was adverse at any stage. In fact, the plaintiff himself was never recorded in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. On the contrary, possession of the plaintiff's father was recorded over the suit land in the revenue record as pattedar under defendant no. 1. Consequently, it cannot be said that even possession of plaintiff's father over the suit land was adverse at any stage. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the first time entry in jamabandi depicting possession of plaintiff's father came in the year 2001-02 i.e. three years after his death. It is not explained as to why the said entry was made in favour of plaintiff's father who had already died. Regular Second Appeal No. 2204 of 2008 -4- There is also no explanation why plaintiff never got his name recorded in column of cultivation in the revenue record. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff has mentioned the suit land to be measuring 28 kanals whereas he has given description of the suit land measuring 32 kanals comprised of killa nos. 1(8-0), 10(8-0), 22(8-0) and 23(8-0). It would depict that plaintiff's case is based on wrong averments. He is not even aware of the area of the suit land. Even otherwise when the plaintiff is claiming adverse possession against true owner and has failed to prove the same, injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below so as to warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 22, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'