IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === Regular Second Appeal No. 700 of 2005 Date of Decision: 13.3.2008 Mansa Ram --- Appellant Versus Patti Ram and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. A suit for possession in respect of the suit land having been decreed by both the courts below against the defendant, this second appeal has been filed at his instance. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 7 Marlas shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint and situated at village Cheeka,Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal with the averments that the defendant was in unauthorized possession of the suit land without their or their predecessors-in-interest’s consent. It was averred that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit land including the land falling towards its southern side vide registered sale deeds dated 24.2.1987 and 12.3.1987. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover back the possession of the suit land from the defendant, who had no right, title or interest therein. The defendant, on RSA No. 700 of 2005 the other hand, while contesting the pleas of the plaintiffs, laid a counter claim that he was owner of the suit land and in case, this fact did not prove on record, the presumption of truth of the said plea could be gouged from another fact that he had constructed his house in the suit land in the year 1957 and his possession was open, continuous and in the knowledge of all. The defendant, thus, claimed that he had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The defendant pleaded that he had constructed a house in the land in dispute which, as a matter of fact, is not a piece of land but a house and, the construction continued for two months and the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs had been watching the same, but they did not object at all and, thus, had given their implied consent to the same. It was further stated that the sale deeds propounded by the plaintiffs were bogus documents and not binding on the right of the defendant. After framing issues, permitting the parties to lead evidence and appreciating the evidence available on the record, the trial court returned a finding that the defendant had failed to prove the plea of adverse possession. A further finding of fact was recorded that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land by virtue of the sale deeds and the defendant was in unauthorized possession as had rightly been held in the judgment, Exhibit P-4, between the parties with regard to the same land passed in civil suit No. 317 of 1991. The pleas of the defendant that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the suit is barred by limitation were negatived by the trial court. The objection of estoppel of the plaintiffs to prefer the suit by their own act and conduct also did not find favour with the trial court. On the basis of these findings, the suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2000 and the plaintiffs were held entitled to possession of the suit land. 2 RSA No. 700 of 2005 The first appellate court, on re-appreciation of the evidence affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant made an abortive attempt to assail the findings of the courts below which are absolutely of concurrent character. It is clearly indicated from the perusal of the impugned judgments that the findings recorded by the courts below are well-reasoned and are also based on appreciation of the evidence, both the oral as well as the documentary. Though the defendant did not spare any effort to counteract the move of the plaintiffs to get a decree for possession, but miserably failed to do so. He also did not succeed in establishing, by any means, that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. As a matter of fact, the finding recorded in the impugned judgments is to the effect that the title over the suit land is of the plaintiffs. This being the situation, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court, especially in the wake of the further fact that the counsel for the appellant had not been able to show to the court any illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the courts below. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 13, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3