IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 RSA-1939-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:24.03.2026 Mal Mohinder Singh (deceased) through LRs and anr. …..Appellants Vs. Ajmer Singh and ors. .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajashwar Singh Grewal, Advocate for the caveators/respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the defendants assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession ins(tuted by the plain(ffs–respondents Ajmer Singh and others was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 30.01.2017, and the said findings were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2025. 2. The case of the plain(ffs, in brief, is that they are owners of the suit property described as gair mumkin land. It is not disputed that earlier a suit for permanent injunc(on filed by them was dismissed on 18.02.2012, wherein the defendants were held to be in permissive possession of the suit property since the year 1975. However, the Court in the said proceedings consciously refrained from adjudica(ng upon the ques(on of (tle and granted liberty to the par(es to seek declara(on of (tle by way of a NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.27 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1939-2025 (O&M) -2- separate suit. Availing the said liberty, the present suit was ins(tuted seeking possession of the suit property on the basis of ownership. 3. The defendants contested the suit by raising a plea of limita(on and by asser(ng that the father of the plain(ffs had sold land measuring 14 kanals, including the suit land, to defendant Mal Mohinder Singh for a considera(on of ₹26,000/- through a wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 recorded in a bahi, and that possession had been delivered in pursuance thereof. It was thus claimed that the defendants and their predecessors were in possession as owners. 4. A<er framing issues and upon apprecia(on of the evidence led by the par(es on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plain(ffs had successfully established their ownership over the suit property on the basis of revenue record, whereas the defendants had failed to prove any lawful (tle. It was further held that the defendants were in permissive possession and that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975, being an unregistered document, did not confer any right, (tle or interest in immovable property. Consequently, the suit for possession was decreed. 5. The learned first Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the en(re evidence, affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was no(ced that the Jamabandi for the year 2010–2011 reflected the plain(ffs as co-sharers/co- owners of the suit property, whereas the defendants had no entry in the revenue record. The Appellate Court further held that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 relied upon by the defendants could not be treated as a document of transfer, as it was neither registered nor did it contain specific details of the property such as khasra numbers. The Court also examined the effect of the earlier judgment and held that the same did not operate as res judicata, inasmuch as the ques(on of (tle had been expressly le< open and the par(es had been granted liberty to seek appropriate relief in separate proceedings. The objec(on regarding non-joinder of other co- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.27 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1939-2025 (O&M) -3- sharers was also rejected by holding that a co-owner is competent to seek possession against a person who is neither owner nor co-sharer. 6. Assailing the concurrent findings, Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated before this Court that the suit is barred by limita(on, that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 evidences a valid sale, that the earlier judgment operates as res judicata and that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary par(es. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and has gone through the record. 8. At the outset, it may be no(ced that both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact with regard to ownership of the plain(ffs and the nature of possession of the defendants. Such findings cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless it is shown that the same are perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 9. The principal conten(on of the appellants rests upon the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975. However, the said document is admiAedly unregistered. In view of the statutory mandate contained in Sec(on 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Sec(on 17 of the Registra(on Act, 1908, a transfer of ownership in immovable property of the value exceeding ₹100 can be effected only through a registered instrument. An unregistered document cannot confer (tle, though it may be looked into for limited collateral purposes. Both the Courts below have rightly applied this seAled legal principle and have held that no ownership rights accrued in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said wri(ng. 10. The plea of res judicata is also devoid of merit. A perusal of the earlier judgment clearly shows that the suit therein was one for injunc(on simpliciter and the Court had specifically declined to adjudicate upon the (tle of the par(es. Rather, liberty was granted to seek declara(on of (tle by NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.27 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1939-2025 (O&M) -4- way of a separate suit. In such circumstances, the present suit cannot be said to be barred by the principles of res judicata. 11. The argument regarding limita(on is equally untenable. Once the possession of the defendants has been held to be permissive, the same cannot be treated as adverse unless there is a clear, hos(le asser(on to the knowledge of the true owner. No such evidence has been brought on record by the defendants. 12. The objec(on regarding non-joinder of co-sharers also does not merit acceptance. It is well seAled that a co-owner is en(tled to maintain a suit for possession against a person who has no (tle to the property. The defendants, having failed to establish any ownership, cannot resist the claim on this ground. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper apprecia(on of evidence and correct applica(on of law. No substan(al ques(on of law arises for considera(on in the present appeal. 14. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica(ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 24, 2026 Nee(ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.27 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document