JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J (Oral).- CM No.3515-C of 2011 1. Allowed as prayed for. CM No.3516-C of 2011 2. The application is allowed and documents annexed with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal 3. Plaintiff-Bachan Singh, having failed partly in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. 4. Plaintiff-appellant sought twin reliefs in the suit. The plaintiff sought declaration that he has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom forcibly, illegally or in any other manner. The plaintiff alleged that he is in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. 5. Defendants by filing separate written statements contesting the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2006 partly decreed the suit granting relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom illegally and forcibly, except in due Courts of law, but the suit regarding relief of declaration was dismissed. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 8. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his claim of acquiring ownership by adverse possession. Mere possession how so long it may be is not sufficient to acquire ownership by adverse possession. Moreover, a person in adverse possession cannot seek declaration of acquiring ownership by adverse possession because adverse possession can be set up only as defence. In this view, I am supported by two judgments of this Court namely Bhim Singh and others versus Jile Singh and others, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 479 and Dewaki and others versus Dayawanti and others, 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 615. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendant No.2 has entered into agreement dated 29.04.2010 with the plaintiff and has also executed power of attorney dated 28.04.2010 in favour of plaintiff’s brother Lakha Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendant No.2 has entered into agreement dated 29.04.2010 with the plaintiff and has also executed power of attorney dated 28.04.2010 in favour of plaintiff’s brother Lakha Singh. However, any right flowing from the aforesaid agreement and power of attorney cannot be enforced in the instant second appeal. The said documents have been executed during the pendency of the instant second appeal. If the plaintiff derives any right from the said documents, he is at liberty to enforce the same in accordance with law. No comment can be made about the said documents in the instant second appeal. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below against the plaintiffappellant regarding declaration sought by him is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by various reasons recorded by the lower Courts. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is thus found to be meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 11. However, it is again clarified that this order shall have no bearing on alleged agreement dated 29.04.2010 and power of attorney dated 28.04.2010. -----------0.K.B.0------------