Jaswant Singh, J. C.M. No. 12736-C of 2014 1. This is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for bringing on record the Lrs of original plaintiff Babu Ram, who is alleged to have died and left behind the legal representatives as mentioned in para No. 2 of the C.M. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Jasbir Singh, one of the applicants, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the memo of parties is taken on record. RSA No. 5376 of 2014 2. Lrs of the plaintiff are in second appeal, aggrieved against the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed. 3. In brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff claims himself to be in adverse possession of the property in question for the past more than 35 years. It was alleged that the defendant Municipal Committee, Kharar has no right or concern with the property and thus present suit seeking relief of declaration as well as permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property and the defendant should be restrained from interfering in his possession was filed. 4. Upon notice, defendant municipal committee filed the written statement whereby it was stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of service as per Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act and also on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant Municipal Committee had become the owner of the property in the year 1976 through a government notification vide which municipal limits of Kharar were extended. It was also alleged that it is the defendant who is in possession of the property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Thus, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 5. Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 13.01.1994. 5. Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 13.01.1994. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2014. Hence the present second appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that both the Courts below have misinterpreted and misconstrued the evidence on record and thus, on this ground judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It has further been argued that as per the jamabandi for the year 1982-83, the name of the plaintiff was recorded and he was also shown in possession and prior to that, only Gair Mumkin choe was recorded in the revenue record. Thus it was argued that it is proved on record that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the findings contrary to that are liable to be set aside. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff, before filing the present suit for declaration had not given a notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, which was required to be served by him before filing the present suit. As per Section 49 of the Act, the service of notice under Section 49 is mandatory and not merely directory and, therefore, the non service of the notice itself under Section 49 debars the suit itself. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 703 : Civil Appeal No. 8244 of 2013 titled as Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. has held that a suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 9. Even on merits, the arguments that have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not only incorrect but misconceived. has held that a suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 9. Even on merits, the arguments that have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not only incorrect but misconceived. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the entry whereby the plaintiff has been shown in the cultivation column of 2 Khasra Nos. in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 (P-3) is unauthorized because there is no rapat or any attestation by any Lambardar or Panch of the village when this change took place in the cultivation column. Thus, this entry is in complete violation of the instructions of the Financial Commissioner. The learned Courts below have appreciated the entire evidence as well as documentary evidence to come to a definite conclusion that plaintiff has not been able to show his possession over any part of the suit land. This Court has gone through the findings recorded by the Courts below and did not find them to be perverse or arbitrary and this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. does not consider it to be a fit case to return any finding in favour of the plaintiff/his Lrs regarding his possession. In view of the above, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination in the present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.