R.S.A. No.3570 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3570 of 2004 Date of Decision:29.09.2008 Raj Kali and others .....Appellants Vs. Punjab Wakf Board, Karnal .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that the plot and house was owned by the deceased Prem Singh and after his death, his legal representatives, i.e., the plaintiffs are in possession of the same for the past 25 years. They have also constructed room on the plot as shown in the site plan. The ownership of plot has also been entered in the municipal record on the basis of possession in the Shamlat-Deh. Plot in dispute is part of Khasra No.4489. They have also perfected their title qua the disputed plot by way of adverse possession. The defendant is bent upon to dispossess them forcibly and illegally. On these allegations, the suit has been filed by Raj Kali and others against the Punjab Wakf Board for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of or interfering in peaceful possession and raising any construction over it by the plaintiffs. In the written statement, the defendant has denied the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. As alleged, the suit land is Punjab Wakf Grave Yard and part of Khasra No.4489. The following R.S.A. No.3570 of 2004 -2- issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land for the last 25 years? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against defendant? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 24.7.2003. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiffs went up in appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide his judgment and decree dated 9.8.2004. Being dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants canvassed at the bar that the appellants have placed on record the site plan showing the construction, electricity bills, entries of municipal register etc., which clearly prove their possession over the land in dispute. He further contended that the plaintiffs- appellants being in possession of the disputed land for the last more than 40 years have perfected their title qua the land in dispute being in adverse possession. To tide over these contentions, Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, R.S.A. No.3570 of 2004 -3- representing the respondent maintained that as per documentary evidence produced and proved on the record, the defendant- Board is the owner in possession of the land in dispute. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal has observed as under:- “17. In the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 Ex.D5 Punjab Wakf Board is recorded to be owner of property bearing khasra No.4489 whereas in the column of cultivation Central Government through Makbuza Akvan Dhobiyan is recorded on khasra No.4489 min (12-17) which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Ghat Bhobiyan. In another jamabandi for the year 1943-44 Ex.D6 the Shamlat Kasba Mazgur is recorded in the column of ownership whereas Jumla Ahiley Islam is recorded in column of cultivation in respect of property bearing khasra No.4489 min (21 bigha 0 biswas) which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Kabristan. Same entries are repeated in another jamabandi for the year 1984-85 Ex.P7. 18. The plaintiffs have come to the court thereby seeking a relief for permanent injunction thereby alleging that they are owner in possession of the plot & house being part of khasra No.4489 min. However, as per my discussion above, the plaintiff have failed miserably to prove that they are owner in possession of the suit property. Moreover, in the plaint, the plaintiffs have also taken alternative stand that they had perfected their title by way R.S.A. No.3570 of 2004 -4- of adverse possession. This accordingly admits the title of the defendant. However, in the plaint it is not specifically alleged as to exactly from when the plaintiff and their predecessor in interest started claiming adverse title to the true owners.” Obviously, on the basis of the above referred documentary evidence, no contrary view can be taken. A glance through the current findings returned by both the Courts below would reveal that the same do not suffer from any illegally or infirmity. Consequently, no interference is warranted therein. More to the point, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. September 29, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE