RSA No. 908 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 908 of 2009
Date of Decision: 20.7.2009
Smt. Savitri Devi ......Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lajwanti and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
Savitri Devi, legal heir of defendant No.1, is in second appeal
aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below,
whereby the suit for possession of the land measuring 2 biswas 16
biswanis, was decreed.
The plaintiffs claimed possession of the aforesaid land, as
owners alleging therein that after the death of husband of plaintiff No.1 and
father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, the defendants have got name plate affixed
on the gate of the disputed plot and has refused to accede the request of the
plaintiffs to vacate the plot in question and hence filed the suit for
possession.
RSA No. 908 of 2009 (2)
In the written statement, defendant No. 1 asserted that he is in
possession of the property in dispute for the last 30 years with the notice
and knowledge of the plaintiffs and that he has acquired rights of
ownership by way of adverse possession. The defendants asserted
possession on the basis of electric connection; water meter; sewerage
connection; house tax number; ration card etc. Reliance was also placed
upon judgment and decree dated 16.3.2001 obtained by the defendant
against one Kaptan in which the present defendant was held to be owner by
way of adverse possession.
Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that
the plaintiffs have been proved to be owners of the suit land and that the
judgment and decree dated 16.3.2001 Exhibit D.8, is against Kaptan and
not against the present plaintiffs. It was found that Kaptan is not a co-sharer
along with the plaintiffs and, therefore, the decree obtained by the
defendants against Kaptan, will not operate as resjudicata against the
plaintiffs herein. The Court has also taken into consideration the averments
made by the defendant in application Exhibit PX/1 submitted to the
Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Gurgaon for sanction of site plan. In
the said communication, he has claimed that the sale deed pertaining to this
plot has been lost i.e. asserted possession on the basis of purchase.
Both the Courts have considered the entire oral and
documentary evidence led by the parties to return a concurrent finding of
fact that the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants remained
unsubstantiated and that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the suit
property. Such findings of fact are sought to be disputed by way of re-
appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has
RSA No. 908 of 2009 (3)
been misread or not taken into consideration.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material
irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to
any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the
present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20-07-2009
ds