-1- 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-986-1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 SUNDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ...Appellant Versus NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ANR. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohabat Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant- plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 07.10.1992 passed by the then Sub Judge, IInd Class, Muktsar whereby his suit for possession was dismissed as well as by judgment and decree dated 29.11.1994 passed by the then learned District Judge, Faridkot whereby first appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed. 2. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Appellant-plaintiff had sought possession over the suit land claiming to be the owner of the property. It is the case of appellant-plaintiff that he was co-sharer with the respondents-defendants and had preferred a partition, which was allowed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Muktsar vide its order dated 16.09.1986. In pursuance of the said partition, symbolic possession was handed over to him RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.28 16:24 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-986-1995 -2- on 07.11.1988 and thereafter, in revenue records mutation No.2308 dated 23.12.1998 was sanctioned in his favour. 3. It is asserted that throughout appellant-plaintiff has been shown to be owner of the suit property and since same is in possession of respondents-defendants who are brothers, therefore, he is entitled to possession of suit property being owner of the suit property. 4. Sole defence taken by respondents-defendants was that they are tenants at will over the suit property, which had fallen to the share of the appellant-plaintiff and therefore, the only remedy available with the appellant-plaintiff is to seek possession through Revenue Courts, since Civil Courts have got no jurisdiction. 5. Both the Courts after taking in consideration Ex.DX have found that appellant-plaintiff himself had preferred an ejectment petition before the revenue authorities claiming himself to be owner of suit property and respondent-defendant No.1 to be tenant at will over the suit property. Both the Courts below had accordingly, concluded that though appellant-plaintiff had become owner of suit property to the extent of his share in view of partition dated 16.09.1986, however, the possession is with respondents- defendants being tenants at will and therefore, possession can only be delivered to appellant-plaintiff by preferring an ejectment petition before the revenue authorities as suit property is an agricultural land. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff could not show anything contrary to the findings recorded by learned Courts below. The findings of learned Courts below are accordingly upheld. 7. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.28 16:24 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-986-1995 -3- 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.28 16:24 I agree to specified portions of this document