Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 782 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. Zora Singh

2002-08-09

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Sadhu Singh and Nahar Singh, who were defendants in the present suit, (appellants herein) have filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below vide which suit of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) for possession of the land measuring 7 kanals was decreed. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed suit for possession on the averments that they are owners of the disputed land. The defendant-appellants contested the suit and denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs-respondents and inter-alia pleaded that about 30 years back, one Hazara Singh, who was the owner of the land in question, gave possession thereof to them and since they are owners in possession of the same. In replication, the plaintiffs-respondents controverted the averments made in the written statement. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owner of the land in suit and are entitled to its possession? 2. Whether Hazara Singh was ever an owner of the suit land and he gave Khasra Nos. 309/7 to the defendants ? If so, to what effect? 3. Relief. 4. Both the Courts below decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the defendants-appellants. It was held that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners of the land in question and they are entitled to its possession. On issue No. 2, it was held that there is no evidence available on the record which shows that Hazara Singh son of Buta Singh handed over possession of the land in question to the defendants-appellants. Contrary to this, as per the documents available on record, the plaintiffs-respondents are shown in possession of the land in question during the life time of Hazara Singh. A finding was recorded to the effect that the land in question was not given to the defendants-appellants by Hazara Singh. The findings recorded by the Courts below are pure findings of facts which go against the defendants-appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that the learned trial court did not frame proper issues. In this regard, he pointed out that the defendants-appellants have taken the plea of adverse possession in their written statement, but no issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that the learned trial court did not frame proper issues. In this regard, he pointed out that the defendants-appellants have taken the plea of adverse possession in their written statement, but no issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial court. He contended that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove that possession of the defendants-appellants was adverse to the true owner. Learned counsel further argued that the Courts below have also recorded wrong finding on issue No. 1 while holding that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners of the land in question and they are entitled to its possession. 6. I have considered the submissions, made by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and have examined the record. The defendant-appellants did not plead the essential ingredients of adverse possession in their written statement. In para 4 of the written statement, they simply stated that they are in possession of the disputed property as owners. Moreover, they have also acquired ownership by way of adverse possession because they are in possession of the disputed property for the last 25 years. In para 2 of the written statement, they denied the ownership of the plaintiffs-respondents and claimed that they are the owners of the disputed property as Hazara Singh gave it to them. Because the essential ingredients of the adverse possession were not pleaded in the written statement that is why the trial court did not frame any issue on adverse possession. During the trial, defendant-appellants also did not lead any evidence to establish their adverse possession. They also did not raise this plea before the first appellate court. Now, they cannot be permitted to raise this plea in the Regular Second Appeal. Even otherwise, there is no substance in this contention of the defendants-appellants. Hence, this contention is liable to be rejected. 7. Regarding the second contention, raised by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, the same is also liable to be rejected, as this Court cannot go into the question of findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on issue No. 1, where it has been held that the plaintiffs-respondents are owners of the disputed property and they are entitled to its possession. No substantial question of law has been framed or raised by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants. No substantial question of law has been framed or raised by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants. The judgments of the Courts below are wholly based upon the pure finding of facts. Hence, no interference is required in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.