Smt. Satya Devi vs Devi Dass

Surjit Singh, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 3.2.2009, of leaned District Judge (first Appellate Court), whereby plaintiff''s appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.2008, of the trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, has been dismissed.

Respondent Devi Dass filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering in his land measuring 1 Kanals 4 Marlas, as described in the plaint, alleging that he was the owner, but the appellant-defendant, without any right, title or interest was threatening to dispossess him.

Suit was contested. Appellant-defendant took the plea that she had been in possession for the last more than 12 years. She claimed that her possession was open, hostile, uninterrupted, as of right and thus, she had prescribed for title. Various preliminary objections were also raised. One of them was that plaintiff-respondent had no cause of action.

Trial Court returned the finding that the respondent-plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. Appellant-defendant''s plea of adverse possession was rejected. Consequently, suit was decreed.

Appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court stands dismissed by the first Appellate Court.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant-defendant that finding of the two Courts below, with respect to the issue, based on the preliminary objection that the respondent-plaintiff had no cause of action, is illegal and it is based on no evidence. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Respondent-plaintiff''s case was that he is owner in possession of the suit land. It was not denied by the appellant-defendant that the title of the suit land, at one point of time, vested in the plaintiff-respondent. She, however, raised the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-plaintiff had no cause of action. Two Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that plaintiff-respondent is owner in possession, which finding definitely means that he had the cause of action, to seek a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, to protect his possession, when the appellant denied his title claiming adverse possession.

No other submission has been made.

In view of the above stated position, it is held that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.