IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 116 RSA-617-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:11.02.2025 Jarnail Ram alias Jaila …..Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Sikka and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, defendant of the case has approached this Court. Suit for possession of the suit property besides for recovery of mesne profits filed by plain$ffs Ashok Kumar Sikka etc. (respondents herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 03.10.2019. Appeal filed by the defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 09.02.2023. 2. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that possession of the defendant- appellant on the suit property is well established, which was by virtue of an agreement to sell executed way back in 1998 by father of the plain$ffs but the Courts below did not permit the defendant-appellant to amend the wri/en statement accordingly. 3. A0er hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper-book, this Court does not find any merit in the conten$on. 4. It is revealed that plain$ffs sought possession of the suit property detailed in head note of the plaint, based upon their $tle. Defendant (appellant herein) contested a suit by taking plea of adverse possession. Plain$ffs proved their case on the basis of entries in the revenue record. Defendant-appellant Jarnail Singh did not even enter the witness-box to prove the plea of adverse possession as taken by him and it was in these circumstances that suit was decreed; and plea of adverse possession taken by NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.02.11 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-617-2023 (O&M) defendant was rejected. 5. It is revealed further that defendant had sought to get his wri/en statement amended by contending that he was in possession of the suit property since 1998 under an agreement to sell executed by Sh. Krishan Lal Sikka, the father of plain$ff No.3 and so, he was en$tled to retain the possession. The applica$on for amendment of the wri/en statement was declined by the trial Court on 24.09.2019. No revision against said order was passed. 6. Learned counsel contends that before the revision could be filed against that order dated 24.09.2019, the main suit itself was decreed on 03.10.2019. 7. Even the aforesaid conten$on is devoid of any merit. The suit has been filed by the plain$ffs in June, 2018. In case, defendant had entered the possession of suit property by virtue of some agreement to sell executed in 1998 as is claimed by him, this would have been the main plea taken by him in the wri/en statement. However, instead of pleading any such agreement to sell, defendant pleaded adverse possession. Said plea of adverse possession is clearly destruc$ve of the plea of permissive possession under agreement to sell and as such, courts below rightly rejected the applica$on for amendment of the wri/en statement. 8. It has not been disputed that defendant-appellant had not even entered the witness-box so as to prove his plea of adverse possession. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court find no merit whatsoever in the present appeal as there is no scope to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 11, 2025 Nee$ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page 2 of 2 pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.02.11 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document