18.08.2025 Pronounced on Harjinder Singh Harjinder Singh v. HON'BLE
Case Details
RSA-2521-1994 1994 (O&M) -1- 108 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-2521-1994 (O&M) RSA Reserved on Reserved on: 11.08.2025 Pronounced on: 18.08.2025 Pronounced on Harjinder Singh Harjinder Singh .....Appellant Shiam & Others Shiam & Others .....Respondents VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Suvarna Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvarna Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvarna Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL) MANDEEP PANNU, 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Harjinder Singh The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Harjinder Singh The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Harjinder Singh The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Harjinder Singh (appellant/plaintiff) (appellant/plaintiff) (appellant/plaintiff) (appellant/plaintiff) against Shiam against Shiam against Shiam against Shiam and others and others and others and others (defendants/respondents), (defendants/respondents), (defendants/respondents), (defendants/respondents), challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and decrees dated 15.02.1990 and 04.09.1993. decrees dated 15.02. 2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed property restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed property restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed property restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed property i.e two taurs/plots bearing No. 121 and 122, marked as ABCD in the site plan i.e two taurs/plots bearing No. 121 and 122, marked as ABCD in the site plan i.e two taurs/plots bearing No. 121 and 122, marked as ABCD in the site plan i.e two taurs/plots bearing No. 121 and 122, marked as ABCD in the site plan e Abadi of village Bamnara, Tehsil and District Ropar. (Exhibit P2), situated in the Abadi of village Bamnara, Tehsil and District Ropar. e Abadi of village Bamnara, Tehsil and District Ropar. (Exhibit P2), situated in th 3. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property on The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property on The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property on The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property on Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation the basis of allotment by the Sales-cum-Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation Managing Officer of the Rehabilitation the basis of allotment by the Sales ssion since the allotment, using the Department, asserting that he had been in possession since the allotment, using the Department, asserting that he had been in posse Department, asserting that he had been in posse site for tethering cattle and parking carts. According to him, the defendants had no site for tethering cattle and parking carts. According to him, the defendants had no site for tethering cattle and parking carts. According to him, the defendants had no site for tethering cattle and parking carts. According to him, the defendants had no right or concern with the land. right or concern with the land. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2521-1994 1994 (O&M) -2- 4. The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiff was not The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiff was not The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiff was not The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiff was not property, and that the property had been used as baras by in possession of the suit property, and that the property had been used as baras by property, and that the property had been used as baras by in possession of the suit them and their ancestors for generations. They claimed possession over the them and their ancestors for generations. They claimed possession over the them and their ancestors for generations. They claimed possession over the them and their ancestors for generations. They claimed possession over the disputed property. disputed property. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:- the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present from? OPP Whether suit is not maintainable in the present from? OPP 4. joinder of necessary parties? OPD Whether suit is bad non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession? OPD by adverse possession? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from filing Whether plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from filing Whether plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD the suit? OPD 7. Whether site plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct? OPD Whether site plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct? OPD 8. Relief. S OF THE COURTS BELOW FINDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW 6. The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.1990, dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence of both sides. It held 15.02.1990, dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence of both sides. It held 15.02.1990, dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence of both sides. It held 15.02.1990, dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence of both sides. It held s not that although allotment of evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Authorities is not that although allotment of evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Authorities i that although allotment of evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Authorities i open to challenge in a civil court and the plaintiff had failed to establish that the open to challenge in a civil court and the plaintiff had failed to establish that the open to challenge in a civil court and the plaintiff had failed to establish that the open to challenge in a civil court and the plaintiff had failed to establish that the allotted taurs/plots No. 121 and 122 corresponded with the suit property in dispute. allotted taurs/plots No. 121 and 122 corresponded with the suit property in dispute. allotted taurs/plots No. 121 and 122 corresponded with the suit property in dispute. allotted taurs/plots No. 121 and 122 corresponded with the suit property in dispute. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2521-1994 1994 (O&M) -3- 7. The first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding The first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding The first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding The first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding from the evidence on record, it was not proved that the plaintiff was in that from the evidence on record, it was not proved that the plaintiff was in from the evidence on record, it was not proved that the plaintiff was in from the evidence on record, it was not proved that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It observed that if there was any dispute regarding possession of the suit property. It observed that if there was any dispute regarding possession of the suit property. It observed that if there was any dispute regarding possession of the suit property. It observed that if there was any dispute regarding identification of the property, the plaintiff should have approached the Custodian identification of the property, the plaintiff should have approached the Custodian identification of the property, the plaintiff should have approached the Custodian identification of the property, the plaintiff should have approached the Custodian n of plots No. 121 and 122 and delivery of possession. Since no for demarcation of plots No. 121 and 122 and delivery of possession. Since no n of plots No. 121 and 122 and delivery of possession. Since no n of plots No. 121 and 122 and delivery of possession. Since no such demarcation was sought, the suit property could not be conclusively identified such demarcation was sought, the suit property could not be conclusively identified such demarcation was sought, the suit property could not be conclusively identified such demarcation was sought, the suit property could not be conclusively identified as plots No. 121 and 122. as plots No. 121 and 122. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT 8. d that the courts Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that the courts Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argue Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argue below had relied on conjectures and surmises in holding that there was nothing to below had relied on conjectures and surmises in holding that there was nothing to below had relied on conjectures and surmises in holding that there was nothing to below had relied on conjectures and surmises in holding that there was nothing to show that the suit property corresponded to plots No. 121 and 122. He submitted show that the suit property corresponded to plots No. 121 and 122. He submitted show that the suit property corresponded to plots No. 121 and 122. He submitted show that the suit property corresponded to plots No. 121 and 122. He submitted operty that the defendants had admitted in their written statement that the suit property that the defendants had admitted in their written statement that the suit pr that the defendants had admitted in their written statement that the suit pr was owned by the plaintiff, and had pleaded adverse possession over it. was owned by the plaintiff, and had pleaded adverse possession over it. was owned by the plaintiff, and had pleaded adverse possession over it. 9. He further contended that if the courts below held that the suit He further contended that if the courts below held that the suit He further contended that if the courts below held that the suit He further contended that if the courts below held that the suit property did not correspond with plots No. 121 and 122, they were bound to give a property did not correspond with plots No. 121 and 122, they were bound to give a property did not correspond with plots No. 121 and 122, they were bound to give a property did not correspond with plots No. 121 and 122, they were bound to give a ty it related to. It was argued that the question of finding as to which property it related to. It was argued that the question of ty it related to. It was argued that the question of finding as to which proper allotment by the Rehabilitation Department could not be reopened by the civil allotment by the Rehabilitation Department could not be reopened by the civil allotment by the Rehabilitation Department could not be reopened by the civil allotment by the Rehabilitation Department could not be reopened by the civil court, and the courts had wrongly gone behind the allotment to conclude that the court, and the courts had wrongly gone behind the allotment to conclude that the court, and the courts had wrongly gone behind the allotment to conclude that the court, and the courts had wrongly gone behind the allotment to conclude that the 2. He also submitted that the area had property did not match plots Nos. 121 and 122. He also submitted that the area had 2. He also submitted that the area had property did not match plots Nos. 121 and 12 undergone substantial changes between 1972 and 1987, making identification undergone substantial changes between 1972 and 1987, making identification undergone substantial changes between 1972 and 1987, making identification undergone substantial changes between 1972 and 1987, making identification difficult. 10. It was further pointed out that the plaintiff’s father, Naurang Singh, It was further pointed out that the plaintiff’s father, Naurang Singh, It was further pointed out that the plaintiff’s father, Naurang Singh, It was further pointed out that the plaintiff’s father, Naurang Singh, 22 along with other land, had earlier filed a suit concerning plots No. 121 and 122 along with other land, had earlier filed a suit concerning plots No. 121 and 1 had earlier filed a suit concerning plots No. 121 and 1 which was dismissed insofar as these plots were concerned, holding that they had which was dismissed insofar as these plots were concerned, holding that they had which was dismissed insofar as these plots were concerned, holding that they had which was dismissed insofar as these plots were concerned, holding that they had been allotted to the present plaintiff. The appellant moved an application under been allotted to the present plaintiff. The appellant moved an application under been allotted to the present plaintiff. The appellant moved an application under been allotted to the present plaintiff. The appellant moved an application under TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2521-1994 1994 (O&M) -4- place on Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC in the present appeal to place on Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC in the present appeal to Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC in the present appeal to record a copy of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 decided on 19.03.1987 titled as record a copy of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 decided on 19.03.1987 titled as record a copy of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 decided on 19.03.1987 titled as record a copy of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 decided on 19.03.1987 titled as ”, which according to him was relevant Naurang Singh v. Shiam Singh and Others”, which according to him was relevant ”, which according to him was relevant “Naurang Singh v. Shiam Singh and Others to the controversy. to the controversy. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 11. ondents submitted that there was no Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no ondents submitted that there was no Learned counsel for the resp illegality in the judgments of the courts below, which were based on correct illegality in the judgments of the courts below, which were based on correct illegality in the judgments of the courts below, which were based on correct illegality in the judgments of the courts below, which were based on correct appreciation of evidence. He had no objection to the application under Order XLI appreciation of evidence. He had no objection to the application under Order XLI appreciation of evidence. He had no objection to the application under Order XLI appreciation of evidence. He had no objection to the application under Order XLI ment had no bearing Rule 27 being allowed, but maintained that the additional document had no bearing Rule 27 being allowed, but maintained that the additional docu Rule 27 being allowed, but maintained that the additional docu on the merits of the case. on the merits of the case. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The concurrent findings of the courts below have been rendered in a suit record. The concurrent findings of the courts below have been rendered in a suit record. The concurrent findings of the courts below have been rendered in a suit record. The concurrent findings of the courts below have been rendered in a suit based on alleged possession of plots No. 121 and 122. for permanent injunction based on alleged possession of plots No. 121 and 122. based on alleged possession of plots No. 121 and 122. for permanent injunction The question of ownership was not in issue. The question of ownership was not in issue. 13. Both courts rightly held that while allotment of evacuee property by Both courts rightly held that while allotment of evacuee property by Both courts rightly held that while allotment of evacuee property by Both courts rightly held that while allotment of evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Authorities cannot be challenged before a civil court, the core the Rehabilitation Authorities cannot be challenged before a civil court, the core the Rehabilitation Authorities cannot be challenged before a civil court, the core the Rehabilitation Authorities cannot be challenged before a civil court, the core uestion here was whether the suit property could be identified as plots No. 121 question here was whether the suit property could be identified as plots No. 121 uestion here was whether the suit property could be identified as plots No. 121 uestion here was whether the suit property could be identified as plots No. 121 and 122 under the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). and 122 under the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). and 122 under the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). 14. The trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of all witnesses, The trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of all witnesses, The trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of all witnesses, The trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of all witnesses, ing the suit property with concluded that there was no convincing evidence connecting the suit property with concluded that there was no convincing evidence connect concluded that there was no convincing evidence connect conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). The first appellate court rightly observed that the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). The first appellate court rightly observed that the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). The first appellate court rightly observed that the conveyance deed (Exhibit P1). The first appellate court rightly observed that the plaintiff ought to have sought demarcation from the Custodian to resolve the plaintiff ought to have sought demarcation from the Custodian to resolve the plaintiff ought to have sought demarcation from the Custodian to resolve the plaintiff ought to have sought demarcation from the Custodian to resolve the dispute of identification. dispute of identification. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2521-1994 1994 (O&M) -5- 15. 7 to place on record the The application under Order XLI Rule 27 to place on record the The application under Order XLI Rule 2 The application under Order XLI Rule 2 , decided on 19.03.1987, is Naurang Singh v. Shiam Singh and Others, decided on 19.03.1987, is Naurang Singh v. Shiam Singh and Others judgment in Naurang Singh v. Shiam Singh and Others allowed, as there is no objection from the respondents. The same is taken on record allowed, as there is no objection from the respondents. The same is taken on record allowed, as there is no objection from the respondents. The same is taken on record allowed, as there is no objection from the respondents. The same is taken on record ’s case as it as Ex.PX. However, the said judgment does not advance the appellant’s case as it as Ex.PX. However, the said judgment does not advance the appellant as Ex.PX. However, the said judgment does not advance the appellant only records that Naurang Singh was not the owner in possession of plots No. 121 only records that Naurang Singh was not the owner in possession of plots No. 121 only records that Naurang Singh was not the owner in possession of plots No. 121 only records that Naurang Singh was not the owner in possession of plots No. 121 and 122. This fact does not establish that the appellant is in possession of the and 122. This fact does not establish that the appellant is in possession of the and 122. This fact does not establish that the appellant is in possession of the and 122. This fact does not establish that the appellant is in possession of the disputed property. disputed property. 16. d undergone Appellant/plaintiff himself admits the fact that area had undergone Appellant/plaintiff himself admits the fact that area h Appellant/plaintiff himself admits the fact that area h since 1972 to 1987 making identification difficult. Faced with substantial change since 1972 to 1987 making identification difficult. Faced with since 1972 to 1987 making identification difficult. Faced with substantial change this situation, the burden was upon appellant/plaintiff to prove the identification of this situation, the burden was upon appellant/plaintiff to prove the identification of this situation, the burden was upon appellant/plaintiff to prove the identification of this situation, the burden was upon appellant/plaintiff to prove the identification of 122 as property by getting it demarcated and connecting it with taurs/plots No.121-122 as property by getting it demarcated and connecting it with taurs/plots No.12 property by getting it demarcated and connecting it with taurs/plots No.12 122. there was not much dispute regarding allotment of taurs/plots No.121-122. there was not much dispute regarding allotment of taurs/plots No.121 there was not much dispute regarding allotment of taurs/plots No.121 Appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence Appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence Appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence Appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence that suit property corresponds with plots No.121 and 122 and that he is in that suit property corresponds with plots No.121 and 122 and that he is in that suit property corresponds with plots No.121 and 122 and that he is in that suit property corresponds with plots No.121 and 122 and that he is in at property, there cannot be said to be any illegality in the possession of that property, there cannot be said to be any illegality in the at property, there cannot be said to be any illegality in the possession of th impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. CONCLUSION 17. The findings of the courts below are based on evidence and do not The findings of the courts below are based on evidence and do not The findings of the courts below are based on evidence and do not The findings of the courts below are based on evidence and do not gular Second Appeal. This suffer from perversity warranting interference in a Regular Second Appeal. This suffer from perversity warranting interference in a Re suffer from perversity warranting interference in a Re Court finds no merit in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed, affirming the Court finds no merit in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed, affirming the Court finds no merit in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed, affirming the Court finds no merit in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed, affirming the judgments and decrees of the courts below. judgments and decrees of the courts below. 18.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 August 18, 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 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document