Shiv Charan v. Manohar Singh
Case Details
RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1746-1993 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: 25.08.2025 Reserved on: Pronounced on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on: Shiv Charan .....Appellant VERSUS Manohar Singh .....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate and Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate and Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the the the the appellant/plaintiff, Shiv Charan, assailing the judgment and decree dated appellant/plaintiff, Shiv Charan, assailing the judgment and decree dated appellant/plaintiff, Shiv Charan, assailing the judgment and decree dated appellant/plaintiff, Shiv Charan, assailing the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree 17.02.1988 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit dated 20.07.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit dated 20.07.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit dated 20.07.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff for grant of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the instituted by the plaintiff for grant of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the instituted by the plaintiff for grant of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the instituted by the plaintiff for grant of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the terfering in his alleged possession over the land measuring 81 defendants from interfering in his alleged possession over the land measuring 81 terfering in his alleged possession over the land measuring 81 defendants from in Kanals 16 Marlas was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both Courts below are Kanals 16 Marlas was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both Courts below are Kanals 16 Marlas was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both Courts below are Kanals 16 Marlas was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both Courts below are under challenge in the present appeal. under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreci The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreci The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreci the controversy: the controversy: Gordhan | | = RamChander = Giarsi (widow) RamChander = Giarsi widow of Gordhan Harbai widow of Gordhan | | | | ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Ram Devi Sarti | | | | Chandro Sukh Devi Baldei Chandro | TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M)
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the Case Facts of the Case -2- 3. Shiv The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that plaintiff-Shiv The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that Charan instituted a suit against the defendants, including Manohar Singh, seeking a Charan instituted a suit against the defendants, including Manohar Singh, seeking a Charan instituted a suit against the defendants, including Manohar Singh, seeking a Charan instituted a suit against the defendants, including Manohar Singh, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his alleged decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his alleged decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his alleged decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his alleged i.e. land measuring 81 Kanals 16 marlas possession over the land in dispute i.e. land measuring 81 Kanals 16 marlas i.e. land measuring 81 Kanals 16 marlas possession over the land in dispute situated in village Gh n village Ghatal Maniawas, Tehsil Rewari . The plaintiff asserted that he , Tehsil Rewari. The plaintiff asserted that he had been cultivating the land in question as Gair Marusi had been cultivating the land in question as since the year 1961, and Gair Marusi since the year 1961, and had even installed a tubewell at his own cost for irrigation purposes. It was further had even installed a tubewell at his own cost for irrigation purposes. It was further had even installed a tubewell at his own cost for irrigation purposes. It was further had even installed a tubewell at his own cost for irrigation purposes. It was further claimed that he had been cultivating wheat and vegetables on the disputed land and claimed that he had been cultivating wheat and vegetables on the disputed land and claimed that he had been cultivating wheat and vegetables on the disputed land and claimed that he had been cultivating wheat and vegetables on the disputed land and plaintiff further had reaped crops during Rabi and Kharif seasons of 1982. The plaintiff further had reaped crops during Rabi and Kharif seasons of 1982. The had reaped crops during Rabi and Kharif seasons of 1982. The contended that by virtue of his long, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 contended that by virtue of his long, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 contended that by virtue of his long, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 contended that by virtue of his long, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 years, to the knowledge of the true owners, he had perfected his title to the suit years, to the knowledge of the true owners, he had perfected his title to the suit years, to the knowledge of the true owners, he had perfected his title to the suit years, to the knowledge of the true owners, he had perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession. land by way of adverse possession. 4. It was also pleaded that original owner It was also pleaded that
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram l owner Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander son of Govardhan, had contracted a Karewa marriage in 1960 with one Chander son of Govardhan, had contracted a Karewa marriage in 1960 with one Chander son of Govardhan, had contracted a Karewa marriage in 1960 with one Chander son of Govardhan, had contracted a Karewa marriage in 1960 with one , thereby forfeiting her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Ram Malia, thereby forfeiting her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Ram , thereby forfeiting her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Ram , thereby forfeiting her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Ram hildren from her Chander. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Giarsi thereafter begot children from her Chander. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Giarsi thereafter begot c Chander. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Giarsi thereafter begot c new alliance, and never cultivated the land in question. Thus, she had no subsisting new alliance, and never cultivated the land in question. Thus, she had no subsisting new alliance, and never cultivated the land in question. Thus, she had no subsisting new alliance, and never cultivated the land in question. Thus, she had no subsisting Ram Chander. The right in the property left behind by her deceased husband-Ram Chander. The right in the property left behind by her deceased husband right in the property left behind by her deceased husband e bent plaintiff alleged that the defendants, having no right, title, or interest, were bent plaintiff alleged that the defendants, having no right, title, or interest, wer plaintiff alleged that the defendants, having no right, title, or interest, wer upon forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed land. upon forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed land. upon forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed land. 5. preliminary The defendants contested the suit. They took one of the preliminary The defendants contested the suit. The defendants contested the suit. objection that the suit is bad of non-joinder of necessary parties. objection that the suit is bad of non They categorically joinder of necessary parties. They categorically denied the possession of the plaintiff as Gair Marusi denied the possession of the plaintiff as or as owner by way of Gair Marusi or as owner by way of adverse possession. They further denied the plea of forfeiture of rights by Smt. adverse possession. They further denied the plea of forfeiture of rights by Smt. adverse possession. They further denied the plea of forfeiture of rights by Smt. adverse possession. They further denied the plea of forfeiture of rights by Smt. Giarsi on account of her Karewa marriage, and asserted that she remained owner to Giarsi on account of her Karewa marriage, and asserted that she remained owner t Giarsi on account of her Karewa marriage, and asserted that she remained owner t Giarsi on account of her Karewa marriage, and asserted that she remained owner t TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -3- the extent of half share of the land inherited from her husband, as per the the extent of half share of the land inherited from her husband, as per the the extent of half share of the land inherited from her husband, as per the the extent of half share of the land inherited from her husband, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further pleaded that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further pleaded that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further pleaded that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further pleaded that the answering defendants had purchased the half share of Smt. Giarsi through answering defendants had purchased the half share of Smt. Giarsi through answering defendants had purchased the half share of Smt. Giarsi through answering defendants had purchased the half share of Smt. Giarsi through 15.06.1982 and mutation was duly sanctioned in their registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 and mutation was duly sanctioned in their 15.06.1982 and mutation was duly sanctioned in their registered sale deed dated names on 21.06.1982. Thus, the defendants claimed themselves to be bona fide names on 21.06.1982. Thus, the defendants claimed themselves to be bona fide names on 21.06.1982. Thus, the defendants claimed themselves to be bona fide names on 21.06.1982. Thus, the defendants claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, in lawful possession of the property. purchasers for valuable consideration, in lawful possession of the property. purchasers for valuable consideration, in lawful possession of the property. 6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff Replication was filed g the stand of the by the plaintiff denying the stand of the defendants, and reiterating the averments of the plaint. defendants, and reiterating the averments of the plaint. defendants, and reiterating the averments of the plaint. 7. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed: On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed: On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in ? OPP dispute as Gair Marusi as alleged? OPP dispute as 1-A. Whet her the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way A. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way her the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP of adverse possession? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether this Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain the is having no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD present suit? OPD 5. Relief. 8. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Both the parties have led their respective evidence Both the parties have led their respective evidence Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 9. Learned trial Court observed in the Learned trial Court observed impugned judgment and decree the impugned judgment and decree dated17.02.1988, that d uring trial, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made a 17.02.1988, that during trial, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made a uring trial, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made a A, and specifically stated that the plaintiff did not statement giving up Issue No.1-A, and specifically stated that the plaintiff did not A, and specifically stated that the plaintiff did not statement giving up Issue No.1 claim ownership by way of adverse possession. In view of this concession, the trial claim ownership by way of adverse possession. In view of this concession, the trial claim ownership by way of adverse possession. In view of this concession, the trial claim ownership by way of adverse possession. In view of this concession, the trial TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -4- Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff cannot be declared owner of the suit ded a finding that the plaintiff cannot be declared owner of the suit ded a finding that the plaintiff cannot be declared owner of the suit ded a finding that the plaintiff cannot be declared owner of the suit property on the plea of adverse possession. property on the plea of adverse possession. 10. As regards possession, the trial Court considered revenue records i.e As regards possession, the trial Court considered revenue records As regards possession, the trial Court considered revenue records As regards possession, the trial Court considered revenue records Jamabandi entries ‘Ex.PC’ for the year 1962–63, Jamabandi entries 63, ‘Ex.PD’ for the year 1967– –68, ‘Ex.PE’ for the year the year 1972–73, ‘Ex.PA’ for the year 1977 and observed that Smt. the year 1977–78 and observed that Smt. Harbai, mother of Ram Chander, and Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander, were Harbai, mother of Ram Chander, and Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander, were Harbai, mother of Ram Chander, and Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander, were Harbai, mother of Ram Chander, and Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander, were recorded as co-owners in equal shares in the suit property measuring 81 kanals 16 in the suit property measuring 81 kanals 1 owners in equal shares in the suit property measuring 81 kanals 1 , while Shiv Charan was shown in possession being a relative of the owners. Marlas, while Shiv Charan was shown in possession being a relative of the owners. , while Shiv Charan was shown in possession being a relative of the owners. , while Shiv Charan was shown in possession being a relative of the owners. The Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted to cultivating the land The Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted to cultivating the land The Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted to cultivating the land The Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted to cultivating the land Gair sometimes as owner, sometimes as relative of the owner, and sometimes as Gair sometimes as owner, sometimes as relative of the owner, and sometimes as sometimes as owner, sometimes as relative of the owner, and sometimes as ereby taking inconsistent stands. Marusi, thereby taking inconsistent stands. 11. The trial Court held that performance of Karewa marriage by Smt. The trial Court held that performance of Karewa marriage by Smt. The trial Court held that performance of Karewa marriage by Smt. The trial Court held that performance of Karewa marriage by Smt. Giarsi did not divest her of ownership rights under the Hindu Succession Act, Giarsi did not divest her of ownership rights under the Hindu Succession Act, Giarsi did not divest her of ownership rights under the Hindu Succession Act, Giarsi did not divest her of ownership rights under the Hindu Succession Act, also 1956, and she continued to remain absolute owner of her half share. It was also 1956, and she continued to remain absolute owner of her half share. It was 1956, and she continued to remain absolute owner of her half share. It was proved on record that the defendants purchased her share through registered sale proved on record that the defendants purchased her share through registered sale proved on record that the defendants purchased her share through registered sale proved on record that the defendants purchased her share through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 and were thus owners in possession of that half share. deed dated 15.06.1982 and were thus owners in possession of that half share. deed dated 15.06.1982 and were thus owners in possession of that half share. deed dated 15.06.1982 and were thus owners in possession of that half share. Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had no legal right to seek Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had no legal right to seek Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had no legal right to seek Consequently, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had no legal right to seek against the true owners, and dismissed the suit. injunction against the true owners, and dismissed the suit. against the true owners, and dismissed the suit. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 12. The First Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and concurred The First Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and concurred The First Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and concurred The First Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to with the findings of the trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to with the findings of the trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to with the findings of the trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to ture of his possession, as he vacillated between the stand of being establish the nature of his possession, as he vacillated between the stand of being ture of his possession, as he vacillated between the stand of being ture of his possession, as he vacillated between the stand of being owner, relative of owner, or tenant at will. The revenue entries did not support his owner, relative of owner, or tenant at will. The revenue entries did not support his owner, relative of owner, or tenant at will. The revenue entries did not support his owner, relative of owner, or tenant at will. The revenue entries did not support his claim of independent possession as Gair Marusi claim of independent possession as . The Court further held that once Gair Marusi. The Court further held that once the defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they stepped into her shoes the defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they stepped into her shoes the defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they stepped into her shoes the defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they stepped into her shoes The Court owners, and the plaintiff could not resist their lawful possession. The Court owners, and the plaintiff could not resist their lawful possession. as co-owners, and the plaintiff could not resist their lawful possession. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -5- operty on behalf of the owners further held that a person who is holding a certain property on behalf of the owners further held that a person who is holding a certain pr further held that a person who is holding a certain pr is not so entitled to any relief of permanent injunction because when a person holds is not so entitled to any relief of permanent injunction because when a person holds is not so entitled to any relief of permanent injunction because when a person holds is not so entitled to any relief of permanent injunction because when a person holds property on behalf of some persons, he is in no better position than a licensee and a property on behalf of some persons, he is in no better position than a licensee and a property on behalf of some persons, he is in no better position than a licensee and a property on behalf of some persons, he is in no better position than a licensee and a Thus, the appeal was licensee is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Thus, the appeal was licensee is not entitled to the relief of permanent in licensee is not entitled to the relief of permanent in dismissed. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff – Shiv Charan. the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Submissions of the Appellant Submissions of the Appellant 14. Learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the ap contended that both the pellant/plaintiff contended that both the Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit. It was urged that the plaintiff had Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit. It was urged that the plaintiff had Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit. It was urged that the plaintiff had Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit. It was urged that the plaintiff had been in long settled possession over the disputed land, cultivating the same for been in long settled possession over the disputed land, cultivating the same for been in long settled possession over the disputed land, cultivating the same for been in long settled possession over the disputed land, cultivating the same for he decision of the Hon’ble more than two decades. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble more than two decades. Reliance was placed on t more than two decades. Reliance was placed on t Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. Supreme Court in (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 519, wherein it was held that even a trespasser (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 519 in peaceful , wherein it was held that even a trespasser in peaceful and settled possession settled possession of a property is entitled to protection of law, such a s entitled to protection of law, such a and possessor cannot be dispossessed by the owner without due process of law and possessor cannot be dispossessed by the owner without due process of law possessor cannot be dispossessed by the owner without due process of law injunction can thereby be granted to protect such possession. It was submitted that thereby be granted to protect such possession. It was submitted that be granted to protect such possession. It was submitted that the plaintiff was in settled possession, and therefore his possession could not be the plaintiff was in settled possession, and therefore his possession could not be the plaintiff was in settled possession, and therefore his possession could not be the plaintiff was in settled possession, and therefore his possession could not be disturbed except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff rbed except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding that the has further submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding that the has further submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding that the has further submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding that the appellant/plaintiff could not get permanent injunction against the true owner, as the appellant/plaintiff could not get permanent injunction against the true owner, as the appellant/plaintiff could not get permanent injunction against the true owner, as the appellant/plaintiff could not get permanent injunction against the true owner, as the appellant/plaintiff stands proved to be tiff stands proved to be Gair Marousi Gair Marousi even after the partition. Submissions of the Respondents Submissions of the Respondents 15. , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Per contra plaintiff had utterly failed to establish any consistent or lawful possession. The plaintiff had utterly failed to establish any consistent or lawful possession. The plaintiff had utterly failed to establish any consistent or lawful possession. The plaintiff had utterly failed to establish any consistent or lawful possession. The revenue entries showed him merely as a relative of the owners. The plea of adverse revenue entries showed him merely as a relative of the owners. The plea of adverse revenue entries showed him merely as a relative of the owners. The plea of adverse revenue entries showed him merely as a relative of the owners. The plea of adverse TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -6- d before the trial Court. Further, once the possession was expressly abandoned before the trial Court. Further, once the d before the trial Court. Further, once the possession was expressly abandone defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they acquired ownership and defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they acquired ownership and defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they acquired ownership and defendants had purchased the share of Smt. Giarsi, they acquired ownership and cannot seek injunction against the true owners. It possession lawfully. A trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owners. It cannot seek injunction against the true owners. It possession lawfully. A was argued that the principle laid down in Ram was argued that the principle laid down in applies Rame Gowda’s case (supra) applies only where possession is settled, peaceful, and not permissive, whereas in the only where possession is settled, peaceful, and not permissive, whereas in the only where possession is settled, peaceful, and not permissive, whereas in the only where possession is settled, peaceful, and not permissive, whereas in the present case, the plaintiff admitted possession under different capacities. Hence, present case, the plaintiff admitted possession under different capacities. Hence, present case, the plaintiff admitted possession under different capacities. Hence, present case, the plaintiff admitted possession under different capacities. Hence, his possession was not protected. his possession was not protected. Findings 16. learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, Having heard this Court is of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the this Court is of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the this Court is of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the this Court is of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from illegality and are based on a wrong proposition of law. Courts below suffer from illegality and are based on a wrong proposition of law. Courts below suffer from illegality and are based on a wrong proposition of law. Courts below suffer from illegality and are based on a wrong proposition of law. 17. ally took the plea of adverse possession in No doubt, the plaintiff initially took the plea of adverse possession in ally took the plea of adverse possession in No doubt, the plaintiff initi the plaint but the same was expressly given up by him before the trial Court. the plaint but the same was expressly given up by him before the trial Court. the plaint but the same was expressly given up by him before the trial Court. the plaint but the same was expressly given up by him before the trial Court. Therefore, the question of ownership by way of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, the question of ownership by way of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, the question of ownership by way of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, the question of ownership by way of adverse possession does not arise. for permanent injunction, is not What is to be seen in the present case, being a suit for permanent injunction, is not What is to be seen in the present case, being a suit What is to be seen in the present case, being a suit the title but the question of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. the title but the question of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. the title but the question of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 18. The contention that Smt. Giarsi lost her rights after contracting The contention that Smt. Giarsi lost her rights after contracting The contention that Smt. Giarsi lost her rights after contracting The contention that Smt. Giarsi lost her rights after contracting Karewa marriage is untenable. This legal position has been settled by Karewa marriage is untenable. the Hon’ble This legal position has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR 1966 SC 1879 and consistently Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR 1966 SC 1879, and consistently fter the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the followed thereafter that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the fter the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the followed thereafter widow inherits the property of her deceased husband as absolute owner, and her widow inherits the property of her deceased husband as absolute owner, and her widow inherits the property of her deceased husband as absolute owner, and her widow inherits the property of her deceased husband as absolute owner, and her Findings of both the Courts below to remarriage does not divest her of such rights. Findings of both the Courts below to Findings of both the Courts below to remarriage does not divest her of such rights. this extent are legal and upheld. this extent are legal and upheld. 19. It is relevant to mention that the suit was filed in respect of the total It is relevant to mention that the suit was filed in respect of the total It is relevant to mention that the suit was filed in respect of the total It is relevant to mention that the suit was filed in respect of the total veals that Smt. Giarsi land measuring 81 Kanals 16 Marlas. The revenue record reveals that Smt. Giarsi land measuring 81 Kanals 16 Marlas. The revenue record re land measuring 81 Kanals 16 Marlas. The revenue record re owners in equal shares. Thus, the defendants and Smt. Harbai were recorded as co-owners in equal shares. Thus, the defendants owners in equal shares. Thus, the defendants and Smt. Harbai were recorded as co TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -7- who claim purchase from Smt. Giarsi vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 who claim purchase from Smt. Giarsi vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 who claim purchase from Smt. Giarsi vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 who claim purchase from Smt. Giarsi vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 present acquired only half share, i.e. 40 Kanals 18 Marlas. The dispute with the present acquired only half share, i.e. 40 Kanals 18 Marlas. The dispute acquired only half share, i.e. 40 Kanals 18 Marlas. The dispute in essence revolves around this half share which originally belonged to respondent in essence revolves around this half share which originally belonged to in essence revolves around this half share which originally belonged to in essence revolves around this half share which originally belonged to Smt. Giarsi. The land covered by the said sale deed comprises Khasra Nos. 15 (8– Smt. Giarsi. The land covered by the said sale deed comprises Khasra Nos. 15 (8 Smt. Giarsi. The land covered by the said sale deed comprises Khasra Nos. 15 (8 Smt. Giarsi. The land covered by the said sale deed comprises Khasra Nos. 15 (8 0), 16 (8–0), 17/2 (4 0), 17/2 (4–0), 24 (8–0), 25 (8–0), 5 (8 12), 0), 5 (8–0), 6 (8–0), 1 (7–4), 10 (6–12), 20 (8–0), 16 (8– –0). 20. Except for stray entry in partition proceedings of suit land to the effect Except for stray entry in partition proceedings of suit land to the effect Except for stray entry in partition proceedings of suit land to the effect Except for stray entry in partition proceedings of suit land to the effect in possession of share of their land, there is no other that defendants are owners in possession of share of their land, there is no other in possession of share of their land, there is no other that defendants are owner evidence to show that defendants e ver come in possession of ½ share of land ver come in possession of ½ share of lan idence to show that defendants ever come in possession of ½ share of lan land was purchased from Smt. Giarsi and got partitioned thereafter. Assuming suit land was purchased from Smt. Giarsi and got partitioned thereafter. purchased from Smt. Giarsi and got partitioned thereafter. proves only the partitioned and ½ share of Smt. Giarsi came to the defendants, this proves only the partitioned and ½ share of Smt. Giarsi came to the defendants partitioned and ½ share of Smt. Giarsi came to the defendants fact that they stepped into the shoes of Smt. Giarsi. However, Smt. Giarsi, herself, fact that they stepped into the shoes of Smt. Giarsi. However, Smt. Giarsi, herself, fact that they stepped into the shoes of Smt. Giarsi. However, Smt. Giarsi, herself, fact that they stepped into the shoes of Smt. Giarsi. However, Smt. Giarsi, herself, never remained in possession of ½ share of suit land at the time, she was owner of never remained in possession of ½ share of suit land at the time, she was owner of never remained in possession of ½ share of suit land at the time, she was owner of never remained in possession of ½ share of suit land at the time, she was owner of the same and as per jamabadies it was plaintiff- the same and as per jamabadies it was plaintiff wn to be in -Shiv Charan who is shown to be in possession of ½ share of Smt. Giarsi as “Gair Marusi possession of ½ share of Smt. Giarsi as “ Gair Marusi”. 21. The relevant revenue entries i.e. The relevant revenue entries i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1962– –63 (Ex.PC) onwards up to the latest Khasra Girdawari for the year 1983–84 (Ex.PK (Ex.PC) onwards up to the latest Khasra Girdawari for the year 1983 (Ex.PC) onwards up to the latest Khasra Girdawari for the year 1983 84 (Ex.PK), consistently record the possession of the plaintiff Shiv Charan as consistently record the possession of t he plaintiff Shiv Charan as “Gair Marusi Gair Marusi” over the half share of Smt. Giarsi. This continuous recording of possession for over the half share of Smt. Giarsi. This continuous recording of possession for over the half share of Smt. Giarsi. This continuous recording of possession for over the half share of Smt. Giarsi. This continuous recording of possession for more than two decades demonstrates that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the more than two decades demonstrates that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the more than two decades demonstrates that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the more than two decades demonstrates that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the d either by the original owner, Smt. suit property. His possession was never disturbed either by the original owner, Smt. suit property. His possession was never disturbe suit property. His possession was never disturbe Giarsi, or thereafter by the defendants who purchased her share. Giarsi, or thereafter by the defendants who purchased her share. Giarsi, or thereafter by the defendants who purchased her share. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. has held that even a Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 519 has held that even a Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 519 Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. (2004) 1 RCR (Civil) 519 trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the true owner by use of trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the true owner by use of trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the true owner by use of trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the true owner by use of force and is entitled to protection of law until dispossession is effected in force and is entitled to protection of law until dispossession is effected in force and is entitled to protection of law until dispossession is effected in force and is entitled to protection of law until dispossession is effected in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -8- accordance with law. Similarly, in Walter Louis Franklin (Dead) through accordance with law. Similarly, in LRs v. Walter Louis Franklin (Dead) through LRs v. , it was held that George Singh (Dead) through LRs 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 41, it was held that George Singh (Dead) through LRs 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 41 George Singh (Dead) through LRs 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 41 possession itself is protected in law and a person in settled possession is entitled to possession itself is protected in law and a person in settled possession is entitled to possession itself is protected in law and a person in settled possession is entitled to possession itself is protected in law and a person in settled possession is entitled to injunction even against the true owner, who must seek recovery of possession injunction even against the true owner, who must seek recovery of possession injunction even against the true owner, who must seek recovery of possession injunction even against the true owner, who must seek recovery of possession e process. through due process. 23. Applying these principles to the present case, this Court is of the view Applying these principles to the present case, this Court is of the view Applying these principles to the present case, this Court is of the view Applying these principles to the present case, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has successfully proved through revenue record that the plaintiff has successfully proved his settled through revenue record his settled possession as “Gair Marusi Gair Marusi” in respect of the half share of Smt. Giarsi. Being held in respect of the half share of Smt. Giarsi. Being held The contrary e is entitled to protect his possession against true owner also. The contrary e is entitled to protect his possession against so, he is entitled to protect his possession against findings of the trial Court and first appellate Court, holding him merely in findings of the trial Court and first appellate Court, holding him merely in findings of the trial Court and first appellate Court, holding him merely in findings of the trial Court and first appellate Court, holding him merely in on stray lines in possession as a relative of the owner or treating him as a licensee on stray lines in possession as a relative of the owner or treating him as a licensee possession as a relative of the owner or treating him as a licensee cross-examination of plaintiff , are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. on of plaintiff, are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. , are contrary to the documentary evidence on record. Revenue entries, which are the best evidence of possession, prevail over Revenue entries, which are the best evidence of possession, prevail over Revenue entries, which are the best evidence of possession, prevail over Revenue entries, which are the best evidence of possession, prevail over inconsistent oral statements. Both Courts below erred in ignoring this vital inconsistent oral statements. Both Courts below erred in ignoring this vital inconsistent oral statements. Both Courts below erred in ignoring this vital inconsistent oral statements. Both Courts below erred in ignoring this vital evidence and in drawing adverse conclusions. evidence and in drawing adverse concl 24. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court to the contrary are set aside. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Court to the contrary are set aside. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Court to the contrary are set aside. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Court to the contrary are set aside. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his settled permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his settled permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his settled permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his settled n in respect of half share measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas, being the share possession in respect of half share measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas, being the share n in respect of half share measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas, being the share n in respect of half share measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas, being the share rsi purchased by the defendants, except in due course of law. of Smt. Giarsi purchased by the defendants, except in due course of law. rsi purchased by the defendants, except in due course of law. 25. As regards the other half share belonging to Smt. Harbai, perusal of As regards the other half share belonging to Smt. Harbai, perusal of As regards the other half share belonging to Smt. Harbai, perusal of As regards the other half share belonging to Smt. Harbai, perusal of revenue record reveals that after her death, the property was inherited by her sons revenue record reveals that after her death, the property was inherited by her sons revenue record reveals that after her death, the property was inherited by her sons revenue record reveals that after her death, the property was inherited by her sons and daughters, namely Ram Devi, Sarti, Sukhdevi, and daughters, namely , who are Sukhdevi, Baldei and Chandro, who are not parties to the present proceedings. Since the not parties to the present defendants have no proceedings. Since the respondents/defendants have no concern with it, the suit against them in respect of the share of Smt. Harbai is not concern with it, the suit against them in respect of the share of Smt. Harbai is not concern with it, the suit against them in respect of the share of Smt. Harbai is not concern with it, the suit against them in respect of the share of Smt. Harbai is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties maintainable and is bad for non i.e. LRs of Harbai. joinder of necessary parties i.e. LRs of Harbai TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1746-1993 1993 (O&M) -9- Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff to that e Accordingly, the suit of the plaint xtent stands dismissed having no iff to that extent stands dismissed having no joinder of necessary cause of action against respondents and being bad for non-joinder of necessary cause of action against respondents and being bad for non cause of action against respondents and being bad for non parties. Conclusion 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Regular Second In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Regular Second In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Regular Second In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgments and decrees Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned j dated 17.02.1988 udgments and decrees dated 17.02.1988 and 20.07.1993 of the Courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiff and 20.07.1993 of the Courts below appellant are hereby set aside. The plaintiff-appellant Shiv Charan is declared entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Shiv Charan is declared entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Shiv Charan is declared entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Shiv Charan is declared entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the originally defendants from interfering in his possession over the half share of land originally defendants from interfering in his possession over t defendants from interfering in his possession over t owned by Smt. Giarsi, measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas owned by Smt. Giarsi, except in due course of measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas except in due course of land. The remaining claim of the . The remaining claim of the appellant/plaint with respect to plaintiff-Shiv Charan with respect to other ½ share of Smt. Harbai stands dismissed share of Smt. Harbai stands dismissed in view of the reaso ns given above. in view of the reasons given above. 27.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 August 29, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document