RSA No.1003 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
RSA No.1003 of 2004
Date of decision: 21.11.2008
****
Om Parkash
. . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Surinder Singh and another
. . . . Respondent(s)
****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.O.P. Nagpal, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate
for the respondent(s).
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment
and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for
permanent injunction has been dismissed.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking
declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the
property in dispute by way of adverse possession and sought
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering into his ownership and possession.
At the very outset, Mr.C.B. Goel, counsel for the
respondent(s), has referred to a decision of this Court rendered in
case of “Bhim Singh and others vs. Zile Singh and others” 2006(3)
PLR 159, in which after taking into consideration the provisions of
the Indian Limitation Act, it has been held that no declaration can
RSA No.1003 of 2004 -2-
be sought by a plaintiff with regard to his ownership on the basis of
adverse possession. The plea is available only to the defendant
against a plaintiff. No contrary judgment is cited by the counsel for
the appellant(s).
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the
present appeal as no question of law much less substantial is
involved in this appeal. More particularly, the suit itself is not
maintainable. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
21.11.2008 JUDGE
vivek