IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-323-1997 Isham Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Ram Kishan . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 10.03.2026 Pronounced on: 12.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Mi al, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Mi al, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 19.10.1996, whereby the suit filed by the plain,ff–respondent Ram Kishan for declara,on with consequen,al relief of permanent injunc,on was decreed, re- versing the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant–ap- pellant Isham Singh. 2. Learned counsel for both the par,es have been heard and the pa- per-book has been carefully perused. 3. Facts of the Case : The par,es to the present li,ga,on are real brothers. The dispute pertains to a Bara and the building constructed thereon NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.12 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-323-1997 situated within the Abadi Deh of Village Gharaunda, District Karnal, as detailed in the plaint. 4. According to the plain,ff–respondent, he along with the defen- dant–appellant was the joint owner in possession of the suit property and both of them had been using the same for common purposes without any dispute. It was further pleaded that a room on the southern side of the suit property had been constructed jointly out of common funds. The grievance of the plain,ff was that the defendant was threatening to dispossess him forcibly from the suit property. Consequently, the plain,ff filed the present suit seeking a declara,on that he was joint owner in possession of the suit property along with the defen- dant and sought a consequen,al decree of permanent injunc,on restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from join possession. 5. Defence and Counter-Claim : The defendant–appellant contested the suit and denied the claim of joint ownership of the plain,ff. It was pleaded that the suit property was owned jointly by the defendant Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh in equal shares and that the plain,ff had no right, ,tle or interest therein. The defendant further raised the plea that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. It was pointed out that earlier Civil Suit No.452 of 1981 (decided on 30.07.1983) had been filed by one Surjit Singh against five defen- dants including the present plain,ff and defendant. In that suit, the present plain,ff Ram Kishan and the present defendant Isham Singh were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 and 2 respec,vely. In the said earlier suit, it was held that Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh were owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares, and the said finding was upheld up to this Court. The defendant also pleaded that in the said earlier suit both the present par,es had filed a joint wri en statement admi?ng the ownership and possession of Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh. 6. Apart from the above defence, the defendant also set up a counter-claim, asser,ng that the plain,ff was merely permi ed to use the prop- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.12 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-323-1997 erty with the consent of the owners and was in possession only as a licensee. It was pleaded that the licence had been revoked prior to filing of the wri en statement. Accordingly, the defendant sought a decree direc,ng the plain,ff to vacate the suit property. 7. Proceedings Before the Trial Court: The trial Court ini,ally treated the issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit on 19.09.1987 on that ground. However, in appeal the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 24.11.1988 held that the ques,on of ,tle stood concluded by res judicata but remanded the ma er to the trial Court for adjudica,on on the nature of possession of the plain,ff for the purpose of the relief of injunc,on. The Regular Second Appeal filed against the order of remand was dismissed by this Court on 25.07.1989. 8. AAer remand, the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.12.1991 held that Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh were the owners of the suit property, and that the possession of the plain,ff was only permissive in nature as a licensee. Consequently, the suit of the plain,ff was dismissed, and the counter-claim of the defendant was allowed direc,ng the plain,ff to vacate the property. 9. Findings of the First Appellate Court : In the appeal filed by the plain,ff, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court. The Appellate Court held that although the ,tle of Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh stood concluded by the earlier li,ga,on, the nature of possession of the plain,ff had not been determined in the earlier suit. It was further ob- served that there was no evidence to show how and when the licence in favour of the plain,ff was created or when it was revoked. On that reasoning, the Ap- pellate Court decreed the suit of the plain,ff and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. 10. Submissions of the Pares : Learned counsel for the appellant–de- fendant contends that once it stands conclusively established that Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh are the owners of the suit property, and the plain,ff does not NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.12 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-323-1997 claim any independent ,tle, tenancy or any other legal right in the property, his possession can only be permissive in nature. It is further argued that the ins,tu- ,on of the counter-claim by the defendant itself cons,tutes sufficient no,ce for revoca,on of the licence, and therefore the Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fer- nandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (dead) thr LRs and others, AIR 2012 AIR SC 1727. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent–plain,ff submits that the defendant failed to establish the crea,on and revoca,on of li- cence and therefore, the Appellate Court rightly decreed the suit. 12. Consideraon by the Court : Having considered the rival submis- sions, this Court finds merit in the appeal. 13. It is not disputed that in the earlier li,ga,on ini,ated by Surjit Singh, the Court recorded a categorical finding that Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh were the owners in possession of the suit property, and the said finding has a ained finality up to this Court. It is also not disputed that in the said ear- lier suit the present plain,ff had himself admi ed the ownership of Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh. 14. Significantly, the plain,ff does not claim any independent ,tle over the suit property nor has he pleaded that he entered the property as a ten- ant, lessee, mortgagee or under any legally recognised arrangement. In such cir- cumstances, the possession of the plain,ff can only be permissive in nature, ei- ther as a licensee, caretaker or a person allowed to occupy the premises gratu- itously. 15. The law on the subject has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Se- queira (supra), wherein it has been held that a person who is allowed to stay in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.12 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-323-1997 the property gratuitously does not acquire any right or interest in the property even by long possession. The Supreme Court has further clarified that a care- taker or person allowed to stay in the premises merely holds possession on be- half of the owner and cannot claim protec,on of possession against the true owner. 16. In the present case, once the ownership of the defendant stands established and the plain,ff fails to show any independent legal right to remain in possession, the plain,ff cannot claim protec,on of possession merely on the basis of long occupa,on. 17. The reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court that the li- cence was not proved to have been created or revoked is legally unsustainable. When a person is allowed to occupy the premises gratuitously, the law pre- sumes such possession to be permissive, and the filing of a counter-claim seek- ing evic,on is itself sufficient indica,on of revoca,on of such permission. Conse- quently, the First Appellate Court fell into a grave error in reversing the well-rea- soned judgment of the trial Court. 18. Conclusion : In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 19.10.1996 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said judgment and decree are set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court dis- missing the suit and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant, are restored. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 12.03.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No Uploaded on.: 12.03.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.12 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document