IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 111 CM-581-C-2020; CM-580-C-2020; CM-582-C-2020 in/and RSA-231-2020 Date of Decision.:03.03.2025 Ajit Singh and Another …..Appellants Vs. Gurcharan Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-581-C-2020: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. CM-580-C-2020: 4. This is an applicaon under Secon 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 113 days in re-filing the appeal. 5. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon, delay of 113 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.05 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-581-C-2020; CM-580-C-2020; CM-582-C-2020 in/and RSA-231-2020 -2- 7. This is defendants appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit for possession regarding property in dispute filed by plainffs Gurcharan Singh and others (respondents herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 23.05.2017. In the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants, the Appellate Court endorsed the findings of the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2018. 8. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in right perspecve, as possession of defendant has been admi5ed by one of the witnesses of the plainffs. 9. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that plainffs claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and that defendants did not have any right, tle or interest therein. Defendants took the plea of adverse possession. While appreciang the evidence produced on record, the Appellate Court found that the revenue record in the shape of jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari, Fard Haqiat (Ex.P1 to P3) reflected the possession of the plainff on the suit land. Name of the defendant was nowhere found in the revenue record. The Courts further found that defendant failed to plead necessary ingredients for seBng up the plea of adverse possession. Sll further, it was found that stray admission made by witness of the plainff was clearly contrary to the revenue record and that statement of the witness was required to be read as a whole. The Courts below gave firm findings to the effect that it is the plainff, who was in possession of the suit land. 10. ACer going through the findings, which are found to be based upon proper appreciaon of evidence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the same. There is no scope calling for any interference as NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.05 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-581-C-2020; CM-580-C-2020; CM-582-C-2020 in/and RSA-231-2020 -3- the findings are neither perverse nor illegal. 11. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merits, same is hereby dismissed. Pending applicaon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 03, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.05 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document