Kanak Ram And Other v. Chanan Singh And Other

Viney Mittal, J.

1. Plaintiffs have lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land having become the owners by way of adverse possession to the extent of 1/4 share i.e. 52 kanals 9 marlas out of total 209 kanals 15 marlas. Additionally the plaintiff sought a declaration to the effect that the sale-deed executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 dated 7.12.1989 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also challenged the judgment and decree dated March 1, 1998 passed by Sub-Judge HI Class, Patiala claiming the same to be illegal, null and void and not binding. The plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating, transferring or in any other manner mortgaging etc. the suit land.

2. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs were shown to be the co-sharers of the suit land along with the share purchased by defendant No. 1 from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Although, it has been held that the plaintiffs were shown to be in possession of the suit land for a very long time, their plea of adverse possession had been rejected.

3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Bhim Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. , I am of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming a declaration that they have become the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession is not maintainable. In these circumstances the regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree of the two Courts is also without any merit.

4. At this stage, it may be noticed that Sh. Arun Palli, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellants has contended that since the plaintiffs were shown to be in settled possession of the suit land for time immemorial, therefore, they had become the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

5. However, since it is being held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, therefore their plea of having become owners by way of adverse possession on account of long possession loses all relevance.

6. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.