RSA No. 1921 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1921 of 2006 Date of Decision:29.4.2008 Mehal Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Kala Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the appellants -.- PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming adverse possession over the suit land on the ground that they are in a peaceful possession. They also sought a direction that the correction be made in the entries of jamabandi for the years 1981-82, 1985-86, 1990-91 and 1995-96. They further claimed permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in their possession. Defendant Nos. 8 to 14 were set ex parte. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 7. They claimed the possession of the suit property and denied the possession of the plaintiff. The trial court framed issue No. 1 regarding right of the plaintiff-appellants for adverse possession. While deciding this issue, the trial court held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove, who is owner of the suit property and in absence of the owner, no decree for adverse possession can be granted. However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants came to be partly decreed only to the extent of relief of permanent injunction whereas relief of declaration was denied vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2004. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which resulted in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 2.3.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur. RSA No. 1921 of 2006 2 Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the claim of the plaintiffs should have been admitted. However, from the impugned judgments, it is clear that plaintiffs have failed to prove that who is the owner of the suit property. Declaration of adverse possession can be granted against the true owner and is a relief in person am. Under these circumstances both the courts have rightly declined the relief of declaration. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 29.4.2008 (Permod Kohli) mk Judge