IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1780 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 11, 2009 Balwant Singh ....Appellant Versus Samal Nath and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the respondents was decreed with costs by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa on 20.10.2004 and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to them within a period of two months. The counter claim preferred by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed the first appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa on 14.2.2008. Hence, the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly to the plaintiffs-respondents they were owners of the plot/land measuring 8 marlas comprised in Khasra No.1540 Khewat No.5536 Khatuni No.7215 situated in the revenue estate of R.S.A. No. 1780 of 2008 -2- village Rania, which was allotted to their father, who died about 30 years earlier. After his death, they were in possession of the plot in question as its lawful owners. In the revenue records the name of their father was still continuing, whereas it were the plaintiffs, who were owners of the same. About 6/7 months before filing of the suit, when the plaintiffs went out of station in connection with their personal work, in their absence the defendant occupied the plot forcibly and illegally without any right, besides raising some construction over the same. Hence, the suit for possession In his written statement, the defendant-appellant took preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was asserted that he was in possession over the plot in dispute for the last 25 years and his possession was open, hostile and without any interruption. Ever since the life time of the father of the plaintiffs, he had been residing in the plot in dispute. He, along with his family members, had also got ration-card and votes in their names. He claimed his possession over the plot in dispute for the last 25 years and since his possession was continuous, open, hostile and without any interruption, it had turned into his ownership. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going R.S.A. No. 1780 of 2008 -3- through the evidence on record, learned Courts below held that as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98, the suit property was owned by father of the plaintiffs. The documents produced by the defendant did not in any way show that they related to the plot in question. There was absolutely nothing on record to prove that the possession of the defendant over the plot in question was more than 12 years and had ripened into ownership. As the possession of defendant was illegal and unauthorised, the plaintiffs were held entitled to the relief of possession. Accordingly, the defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the plot in question to the plaintiffs. At the time of preliminary hearing learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that his client had his house in the disputed land which would be demolished and, therefore, he may be allowed to retain the property by paying due consideration for the same to the plaintiffs. After noticing the stand taken on behalf of the defendant-appellant, the Court issued notice of motion to the plaintiffs- respondents. Upon their appearance, the case was adjourned on a number of occasions so that the parties may amicably resolve the matter. Despite the same, no compromise could be arrived at, and, therefore, the present appeal is being taken up for consideration on its merits. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the judgments passed by the learned Courts below carefully perused. R.S.A. No. 1780 of 2008 -4- It is not in dispute that the plot in question was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs-respondents. As per the Jamabandi for the year 1997-98, the plot in question was reflected to be owned by and in possession of Jaggu Nath, who was none-else but the father of the plaintiffs. Mere fact that said Jaggu Nath had died much prior to the said period did not mean that the entries in the Jamabandi were incorrect. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs were required to apply for sanctioning of mutation of inheritance regarding the plot in question. However, being rustic and illiterate, the plaintiffs did not take any steps for getting the mutation sanctioned. The defendant was not the legal heir of Jaggu Nath alias Jaggan Nath. His plot is situated adjacent to the plot in question. Taking benefit of the absence of the plaintiffs from the locality, the defendant occupied the said plot and raised some construction over the same. This happened about 6/7 months prior to the filing of the suit. The defendant tried to prove his possession over the plot in question from the documents Exs. D1 to D4, which were the receipts of house tax issued by the Municipal Committee, Rania, Ex.D5 site plan and Ex.D6 Voters' list. In none of these documents the number of the plot in question was mentioned As the plot of the defendant was situated next to the plot in question, he has tried to misuse the aforementioned documents so as to claim possession over the plot in question for sufficiently long period of time of 25 years, so as to claim ownership by way of adverse possession. R.S.A. No. 1780 of 2008 -5- The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on the record. These findings are neither perverse nor do they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. These cannot be set aside and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the defendant- appellant arises for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 11, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO