Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Singh vs Bhim Singh And Ors. on 28 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)142PLR151
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. Whether nor not the plaintiff-appellant has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession?
is the short and the only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal.
2. Succinctly, the case of the appellant is that after Gore Lal, deceased father of defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had won the suit filed against his father Darbari for obtaining possession of the suit land, vide judgment dated 8.1.1983, he did not get the decree executed and failed to obtain physical possession thereof and the suit land remained earlier in possession of his father Darbari and after his death he himself came in its possession. In this way, the appellant claims that he had become owner of the suit property by adverse possession.
3. However, undisputedly, the father of the appellant filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which was dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.1985 (Ex.D-3). Not only this, there is also judgment and decree dated 7.12.1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 279 of 1992 titled Umed Singh v. Ghore Lal (Ex.D-4). A perusal of Ex.D-4 reveals that Umed Singh had brought an admitted suit against the father of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Gore Lal wherein he sought declaration to the effect that he had become owner in possession of the suit property. The decree in the said suit has been produced on record as Ex.D-5. If Gore Lal had not obtained the possession of the suit property in the year 1985,then it is not understandable how respondent No. 5 (Umed Singh) could claim that he is owner in possession of the suit property. With regard to the ownership and possession of Umed Singh (respondent No. 5), there is no dispute from the side of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are the successors-in-interest of Gore Lal deceased.
4. Even otherwise, the plaintiff-appellant has claimed his adverse possession of the suit property only on the basis of Jamabandi (Ex. P-3) which pertains to the year 1996-97. No other documentary evidence has been produced by him in support of his claim. Merely, on the basis of this documentary evidence, the adverse possession of the plaintiff-appellant for a continuous period of 12 years cannot said to have been proved at all. Both the courts below have passed very well-reasoned judgments and I do not find any reason to differ with the same.
5. Moreover, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in the second appeal in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.