Pritam Pal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur, exercising enhanced appellate powers, deserves to be dismissed on the simple ground that no substantial point of law is involved in it.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that the Plaintiffs -respondents are admittedly owners of Khasra No. 85, whereas the Defendant -appellant Kunj Lal owns the adjoining Khasra No. 84 The Plaintiffs in their suit alleged that the Appellant had encroached upon an area of 17 marlas out of Khasra No. 85 about 3 years prior to the filing of the suit. The disputed portion is shown as 'ABCD' in the plan attached with the plaint. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the encroached portion from the Appellant. In the written statement filed by the Appellant he denied that the disputed site is part of Khasra No. 85. He insisted that it is a part of his own Khasra No. 84. In the alternative he pleaded that he has become owner thereof by adverse possession of more than 12 years. The learned trial court held that although the site in dispute is part of Khasra No. 85 belonging to the Plaintiffs but the Appellant has been in adverse possession of the same for more thin 12 years and he has, therefore, become owner thereof. On these findings the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree the Plaintiff preferred an appeal which was allowed by the lower appellate Court holding that adverse possession of the Appellant for the statutory period of 12 years has not been proved. As a result of this finding the judgement and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the Plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed. It is manifest that the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court regarding the period of the Appellant's adverse possession cannot be questioned in second appeal. It is a pure finding of fact and no point of law is involved therein. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned tower appellate Court did not discuss admission of the Plaintiff respondent Dharam Singh in his cross examination whereby he had conceded that the Appellant was in possession of the site in dispute for about 25 to 30 years. No doubt, no specific reference has been made by the learned lower appellate Court of the statement of Dharam Singh Plaintiff who stepped into the witness box as P.W. -3, but a bare reading of his statement shows that he never admitted adverse possession of the Appellant for a period of 12 years. On the contrary he deposed that adverse possession of the Appellant started only five or six years before the statement was recorded In cross -examination he merely stated that the Appellant had been earlier in possession of the disputed site for 25 to 30 years as a co -sharer. This cannot be considered an admission of the Appellant's adverse possession for more than 12 years. Thus, the statements of Dharam Singh Plaintiff -respondent does not carry forward the Appellant's case in any manner. The Appellant in his own statement did not allude to the period of his possession nor to his possession being hostile to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. I, therefore, find not the least infirmity in the finding of fact regarding Appellant's adverse possession arrived at by the lower appellate Court.
(3.) IN this view of the matter of this appeal is dismissed with costs.;