Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Jee Ram v. Versus ……
Case Details
RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [1 1] 112 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-3546-2010 (O&M) RSA Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Date of Decision: Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Versus Versus …….Appellants Balbir Singh and another Balbir Singh and another .….Respondents JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: Present: Mr.V.D. Sharma, Advocate Advocate s/plaintiffs. for the appellants/plaintiffs Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 16.09.2008 and 15.05.2010 judgments and decrees dated passed by 16.09.2008 and 15.05.2010 passed by permanent injunction filed at the the Courts below; whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the permanent injunction filed at the the Courts below; whereby
Legal Reasoning
ndents/ instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respondents/ instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respo instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respo peaceful possession of the suit defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit peaceful possession of the suit defendants from interfering in land, stands dismissed. land, stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, Briefly stating, (hereinafter the appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter the appellants/ plaintiffs referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with suring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra respect to the land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra suring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra respect to the land mea Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [2 2] peaceful prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of possession over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as ’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the gair marusi’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the ’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the ‘gair marusi gal heir and as tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being legal heir and as tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being le tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being le ’ tenant. The such he came in possession thereof as ‘gair marusi’ tenant. The such he came in possession thereof as ‘ such he came in possession thereof as ‘ towards payment of plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 towards payment of plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 batai, issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 .2’) and thus claimed (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.2’) and thus claimed (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No permanent injunction. permanent injunction. 3. Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of while stating that the suit land was purchased by him defendant No.2 while stating that the suit land was purchased by him while stating that the suit land was purchased by him defendant No.2
Legal Reasoning
from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated rchase, half of the land was given on rent to 29.07.1993. After its purchase, half of the land was given on rent to rchase, half of the land was given on rent to 29.07.1993. After its pu respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining half was defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that was in possession of defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as ‘gair marusi’ rusi’ and as such there was no question of plaintiff and as such there was no question of plaintiff being being in the possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since the possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since waries were in the name of Puran Chand; entries in the khasra girdwaries were in the name of Puran Chand; waries were in the name of Puran Chand; entries in the khasra gird compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of result thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of the proceedings to the same effect were defendant No.2, however, as the proceedings to the same effect were the proceedings to the same effect were defendant No.2, however, pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [3 3] carried out in terms of the said compromise. carried out in terms of the enied that Puran compromise. It was denied that Puran Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the ground as alleged in the plaint ? OPP ground as alleged in the plaint ? OPP Whether the suit not maintainable ? OPD 2. Whether the suit not maintainable ? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual 4. Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual physical cultivating possession as alleged ? OPD physical cultivating posses Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff 5. Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff are wrong illegal and against the factual position as are wrong illegal and against the factual position as are wrong illegal and against the factual position as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.” 5. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated while 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff while 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating ’ tenant of defendant possession of the suit property being ‘gair marusi’ tenant of defendant possession of the suit property being ‘ possession of the suit property being ‘ No.2. 6. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, by the Court of learned District me also came to be dismissed by the Court of learned District me also came to be dismissed the same also came to be dismissed Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010 15.05.2010. Hence, the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees submits passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [4 4] the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts that the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points nd of defendant No.2 was that out that in the written statement the stand of defendant No.2 was that out that in the written statement the sta out that in the written statement the sta in the year the possession of the suit property was obtained by him in the year the possession of the suit property was obtained the possession of the suit property was obtained 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, it was stated it was stated it was stated it was stated that that that that the the the the s handed over to him by Puran Chand possession of the property was handed over to him by Puran Chand s handed over to him by Puran Chand possession of the property wa i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also submits that even Khasra Girdwari entry submits that even Khasra Girdwari to the land in entry with respect to the land in question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of the jamabandi entry for the years father of the plaintiff, besides even the jamabandi entry for the years the jamabandi entry for the years father of the plain 1998-99 (Ex.P4) . Learned counsel further submits that the 99 (Ex.P4) as well. Learned counsel further submits that the . Learned counsel further submits that the the Courts below over the affidavit of entire reliance placed upon by the Courts below over the affidavit of the Courts below over the affidavit of entire reliance placed upon Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never proved on record legible and even the signatures of Puran roved on record being legible and even the signatures of Puran legible and even the signatures of Puran Chand over the same were never got compared or verified. Learned over the same were never got compared or verified. Learned were never got compared or verified. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his ssession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. possession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. ssession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. No other argument has been advanced. No other argument has been advanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [5 5] defendant No.2 submits defendant No.2 submits defendant No.2 submits defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiff that the plaintiff that the plaintiff that the plaintiff failed failed failed failed to prove his to prove his to prove his to prove his the possession over the suit land. He points out that neither the possession over the suit land. He possession over the suit land. He signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent No.2/ defendant No.2; nor the factum No.2/ defendant No.2 about its execution was ever the factum about its execution was ever Learned counsel also points out that there was no proved on record. Learned counsel also points out that there was no Learned counsel also points out that there was no proved on record. aintiff to be in possession of the property in revenue record showing plaintiff to be in possession of the property in aintiff to be in possession of the property in revenue record showing pl question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person was not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person ’ tenancy was not even established in especially when the ‘gair marusi’ tenancy was not even established in ’ tenancy was not even established in especially when the ‘ f proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the the absence of proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the f proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the the absence o appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to through the paper find substance in am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. the submission(s) made on behalf of the the submission(s) made on behalf of the 10. plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to The plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to be in possession of the property in question having been inherited be in possession of the property in question having been inherited be in possession of the property in question having been inherited be in possession of the property in question having been inherited from his father, who happened to be ‘ from his father ’ tenant over the happened to be ‘gair marusi’ tenant over the merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff or merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff same, is without any merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff same, is without any even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. 11. Further from the evidence available on record, it has Further from the evidence available on record, it has Further from the evidence available on record, it has nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession of the property in question; no revenuer record has been produced of the property in question; no revenuer record has been of the property in question; no revenuer record has been d on record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. The khasra girdwari and jamabandi produced on record The khasra girdwari and jamabandi were in the produced on record were in the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [6 6] to be thus ignored as name of deceased Puran Chand which were to be thus ignored as name of deceased Puran Chand which name of deceased Puran Chand which the same could not be considered as proof of possessi the same on of the be considered as proof of possession of the especially when payment of rent was plaintiff over the suit property especially when payment of rent was especially when payment of rent was plaintiff over the suit property not shown shown. 12. Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the plaintiff towards proof of ‘ been relied upon by the plaintiff also does towards proof of ‘batai-rent’ also does ures over the said receipt were never not serve his cause. The signatures over the said receipt were never ures over the said receipt were never not serve his cause. The signat admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was denied by defendant No.2 in his cross denied by defendant examination while appearing No.2 in his cross-examination while appearing as DW5. Ex.P1 shows Be that as it may, a perusal of the document Ex.P1 shows Be that as it may, a perusal of the that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has aintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever been led by plaintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever aintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever been led by pl known as Jeet Singh as well. known as Jeet Singh as well. 13. the factum of possession of defendant On the contrary, the factum of possession of defendant the factum of possession of defendant over the property in question was even established on record No.2 over the property in question was even established on record over the property in question was even established on record over the property in question was even established on record through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him and the deceased the deceased father of plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand and the father of plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand and the from the said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 from the said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 deposition made by osition made by Sumer Chand, who happened to be ex Sarpanch Sumer Chand, who happened to be ex-Sarpanch of that Village and appeared as defendant witness of that Village and appeared as defendant witness. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 3546-2010 (O&M) [7 7] 14. Further no merit can even be found in the submissions Further no merit can even be found in the submissions Further no merit can even be found in the submissions possession of defendant No.2 made on behalf of the plaintiff that the possession of defendant No.2 made on behalf of the plaintiff that the made on behalf of the plaintiff that the was not established on record as the was not establ the ished on record as the affidavit Ex.D1 given by the deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not this Court, even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not this Court, legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the suit property through the compromise Ex.D1, itself. suit property through the compromise Ex.D1 suit property through the compromise Ex.D1 15. In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish no question of law, his possession over the property in question, no question of law, his possession over the property in question, his possession over the property in question, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present much less substantial question of law is involved in the present much less substantial question of law is involved in the present much less substantial question of law is involved in the present as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference appeal; as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the by this Court with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the by this Court , the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, Courts below, the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, , the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, Courts below dismissed. dismissed. 16. any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. 08.09.2025 .2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document