Kishana and Another vs Girdhari Lal and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—This is second appeal by plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

Appellants filed suit against respondents seeking declaration that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession and therefore, revenue entries depicting defendants as owners of suit land are liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed permanent injunction against their forcible dispossession.

The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs unauthorizedly occupied suit land in Rabi 1964 crop and are in unauthorized possession of the suit land since then. The defendants made counter claim seeking relief of possession of the suit land.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2006 dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim. Both the parties preferred first appeals challenging judgment and decree of the trial court. However, learned District Judge, Sirsa vide common judgment and decrees dated 29.4.2009 dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

The plaintiffs have sought declaration that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. Even defendants have admitted that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since the year 1964 i.e. for more than 40 years before filing of the suit. However, this Court has held in Bhim Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. 2006 (1) PLJ 420 and Kanak Ram and Ors. v. Chanan Singh and Ors. 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 213 that suit for declaration that plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession is not maintainable and on the other hand only defendant can raise the defence of being in adverse possession. In view of these judgments, suit filed by the plaintiffs to seek declaration that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession is not maintainable. However, the plaintiffs could raise the defence of being in adverse possession of the suit land and for this reason the defendants could not succeed in their counter claim. However, at the same time, declaration in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be granted.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.