RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this Regular Second Appeal is for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala dated 24.2.1999 dismissing the suit as also the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
(2.) THE facts, may be noticed in brief : The appellants, purchased land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 121//19 situated at village Baraula, Tehsil and District Ambala from Smt. Rattan Kaur vide registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1980. A dispute arose between the appellants and the respondents, with respect to possession of an adjoining piece of land measuring 0.9 marlas, situated in khasra Nos. 121//20. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that though they had not purchased the afore- mentioned land, possession thereof had been delivered to them by their vendor and they were, therefore, entitled to pray for the grant of an injunction to protect their possession. In order to justify their possession, the appellants claimed that possession of 9 marlas had been delivered to them by Smt. Rattan Kaur, their vendor with respect to the adjoining land. The respondents, opposed the suit alleging that as per the revenue record, the land was owned and possessed by the proprietors of the village and as the appellants had no title thereto, the suit be dismissed. The learned trial Court, after framing issues and after recording evidence, held that the appellants had failed to establish their possession over the land in dispute and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved therefrom the appellants filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that a perusal of the report, submitted by the Local Commissioner clearly establishes that they had constructed a boundary wall around the 9 marlas. This fact, was sufficient to rebut the revenue record, reliance whereof was placed by the Courts below to hold that the appellants were not in possession. It is also argued that the location of 9 marlas is such as to suggest that no person other than the appellants could retain possession of the said land.
(3.) NO one is present on behalf of the respondents.;