RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -1- 205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2026 PARAS RAM ......APPELLANT Vs. KANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate, for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the contesting respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. ***** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 1. The appellant, Paras Ram, son of late Siri Chand, has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (for short, “the learned First Appellate Court”), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1- Kanwar Singh, son of Gugan, against the judgment and decree, dated 19.09.1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh (for short, “the learned trial Court”), was allowed, and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of late Siri Chand, father of the appellant, in his suit for permanent injunction, were reversed. 1.1 In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the just adjudication of the present case are that Siri Chand, son of Prabhati (deceased), filed Civil Suit No. 327 of 1993, titled “Siri Chand v. Jeet Ram and others,” before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or raising any construction over the plot of the plaintiff measuring 6 ‘Marlas’, comprising ‘Khewat’ No. 96, ‘Khatoni’ No. 133, ‘Khasra’ No. 124, as per the ‘Jamabandi’ for the year 1989-90, situated in Village Balaicha, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. It was further submitted in the said suit that the defendants Jeet Ram and others are violent and they wanted to forcibly encroach upon the suit property and in case they succeeded in doing so, it shall cause an irreparable loss to the plaintiff Siri Chand. The defendants Jeet Ram and others were requested not to do so and on the basis of these facts the suit was filed before the learned trial Court. 2.1 On notice, defendants Jeet Ram and others appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement that plaintiff had no right or connection over the suit plot, which is owned and possessed by the defendants, who had constructed their house on it for the last 30 years, without any objection from the side of the plaintiff. Further additional pleas were also taken that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit as the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit. Thereafter, the defendants had taken a plea that in fact they had become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Ultimately, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -3- 2.2 Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? If so, to what effect? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 3) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4) Whether the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession? OPD 5) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD 6) Relief 2.3 In support of the evidence, the parties led their respective evidence and the learned trial Court gave the issue-wise findings and ultimately, decreed the suit of the plaintiff Siri Chand and restrained the defendants Jeet Ram and others permanently from interfering with the plot in question owned and possessed by Siri Chand, vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.1996. 2.4 Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 19.09.1996, Kanwar Singh, son of Gugan (defendant No. 2), filed the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, by filing Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1996, titled as “Kanwar Singh v. Siri Chand (since deceased) through LRs and others”, and the said appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 and it was held that deceased Siri Chand is the owner but that the possession of the appellant Kanwar Singh and others over the suit property was NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -4- unauthorized, after taking into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner appointed in the said case. 2.5 Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, Sh. Paras Ram, being one of the legal heirs of the late plaintiff Siri Chand, has challenged the same by way of filing the present appeal before this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had contended that a wrong approach was taken by the learned Additional District Judge, while passing the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 by holding that the respondents Kanwar Singh and others are in unauthorized possession of the suit property. It was contended by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the present appellant before the learned trial Court had placed the copy of the ‘Jamabandi’ of the year 1989-90 (Ex. P-1) and that of ‘Khasra’ ‘Girdawari’ (Ex. P-2), which amply showed the possession of Siri Chand, being the father of the appellant, and showed his continuous possession over ‘Khasra’ No. 124, land measuring 06 ‘Marlas’. 3.1 It is further submitted that even the ‘Khasra Girdawaries’ (Ex. P-2) also reflect the possession of Siri Chand, being the father of the appellant, and of the aforesaid ‘Khasra’ 124 (0-6). 3.2 It is also contended that the learned trial Court though had rightly decreed the suit in favour of Siri Chand and restrained the present respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff Siri Chand and thereafter, the legal representatives of Siri Chand, but the learned Additional District Judge on wrong facts had reversed the findings of the trial Court while taking into consideration the report of the Local NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -5- Commissioner. 3.3 It is further contended that though Siri Chand and thereafter, the present appellant had contended that the suit land is lying vacant and the respondents Kanwar Singh and others had forcibly tethered the cattle and erected two temporary ‘Chhapers’ over the suit land, but it does not mean that the possession of the respondents Kanwar Singh and others was legal. 3.4 It is further contended that even in Paragraph No. 14 of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, it was held that the report of the Local Commissioner belies the claim of the plaintiff that the suit land is lying vacant and it supports the claim of the defendants that they had erected two ‘Chhapers’ over the suit land and were using the same for tethering cattle and allied purposes. 3.5 It is also submitted that even the learned First Appellate Court had wrongly relied upon the statement of PW-2 Daya Ram, who had stated regarding the possession of the defendants over the suit land. In fact, PW-2 Daya Ram had simply stated that the defendants Jeet Ram and others are using the suit land for tethering cattle. So simply, if the respondents/defendants were tethering the cattle on the suit land, it will not tantamount the possession of the respondents Jeet Ram and others being legal. Moreover, the Local Commissioner had also reported that there was no ‘Pakka’ construction over the suit land when he visited the spot and there were only two ‘Chappers’ over the suit land and the remaining area was lying vacant. Thus, it was submitted that as per the revenue record, the father of the appellant, namely Siri Chand, was earlier recorded to be in NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -6- possession of the suit property, vide ‘Khasra’ No. 124 (0-6), and after that the legal heirs of Siri Chand, i.e. the appellants, are in possession of the suit property and in case the respondents have been tethering the cattle etc. on the suit property, it will not mean that the possession of the respondents is legal or they have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as per the plea taken by them in the written statement. 3.6 A prayer was made that the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, while passing the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 4. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the respondents Kanwar Singh and others are in well- established possession of the suit property and even in the report of the Local Commissioner, it was established that the suit land is vacant and the respondents had erected two ‘Chhapers’ over the suit land and were using the same for tethering the cattle and allied purposes and even PW-2 Daya Ram had testified regarding the possession of the respondents over the suit land, and as such, the appellant at this stage, cannot take a plea that the possession of the respondents over the suit property is illegal. At the end, it was submitted that no interference is required with the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul and as such, a prayer was made that the present appeal may be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the paper-book, with their able assistance, this Court finds that the plaintiff has a substantial basis for his claim over the suit property. The ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in ‘Khasra’ NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -7- No. 124, measuring 6 ‘Marlas’, stands established from the revenue record, particularly the ‘Jamabandi’ for the year 1989-90, and it is also the specific finding of the learned First Appellate Court that the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff at the time of consolidation of holdings. Significantly, the claim of the defendants that they had acquired title by way of adverse possession has not been accepted by the learned First Appellate Court, rather their possession has been held to be unauthorised and that of a trespasser. The defendants have failed to establish any lawful right, title or interest in the suit property, whereas the plaintiff’s title is duly supported by the revenue record and the consolidation proceedings. 6. On hearing the above contentions of learned counsel for the parties and as discussed above, the ‘Jamabandi’ of the year 1989-90, so placed before the trial Court, shows Siri Chand, son of Prabhati (father of the present appellant), to be in possession of ‘Khasra’ No. 124 (0-6) and the same has been held to be ‘Gair Mumkin Abadi’. Similarly, Siri Chand again had been held to be in possession of the aforesaid ‘Khasra’ number (Ex. P-2). In the evidence, the report of the Local Commissioner reflects that respondents Kanwar Singh and others had erected two ‘Chhapers’, which are non-permanent in nature, and had been tethering the cattle and using the same for allied purposes. Even PW-2 Daya Ram, while supporting the case of the respondents, had stated that the respondents are in possession of the suit property and also stated that the respondents are using the suit land for tethering cattle. However, this Court is of the view that mere tethering of cattle over the suit land does not by itself make the respondents’ possession legal, established, lawful or settled possession. In NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -8- view of the above, the mere use of the vacant land by the defendants for tethering cattle and allied purposes, particularly when their plea of adverse possession has been rejected, cannot, on the facts of the present case, confer any proprietary right upon them. 7. The Lahore High Court in Mansa, son of Sukh Lal vs. Khushali Ram and another (Second Appeal No. 2253 of 1921), decided on 07.03.1922, has held as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “2. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court and it has been contended on his behalf that the user proved in this case did not amount to adverse possession. There is no doubt that the title was with the plaintiff. According to the general presumption the land being waste land the plaintiff would be presumed to be in possession as possession follows title. It was held in Framji Cursetji v. Gooul Das Madhowji (1892) 16 Bom. 333 that "the user of the sort established in this case is common in this country and excites no particular attention. It is neither intended to denote, nor understood as denoting-on the one side or the other-a claim to the ownership of the land, and, where this, and no more, is the case, it would be wrong to hold that a claim by adverse possession has been made out." In the reported case also the acts relied upon were of a similar nature. The defendants, in that case had built a privy and set up sheds for cows, goats, fowls, etc., and had constructed a but for a ghariwallah. These were all considered to be structure of a flimsy nature and of a purely temporary character. In the present case the tethering of cattle and storing fodder and grazing of cattle has been established by evidence. These acts were of a flimsier nature than those established in the Bombay case. In my opinion adverse possession was NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -9- not made out on the evidence in this case and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the two Courts below grant to the plaintiff a decree for possession on condition that he pays Rs. 149-14-3 to the defendant No. 1 as compensation for the well constructed by him minus Rs. 9, the price of the trees sold by the defendant, i.e., Rs. 140- 14-3. Plaintiff is entitled to costs throughout.” 8. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Chhotabhai Bhauibhai and another (Second Appeal No. 222 of 1960), decided on 29.03.1965 has held as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “3. It may be that there is no evidence on behalf of the Government to show that the suit site belongs to the Government. But there is a presumption under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code unless that presumption is rebutted by the plaintiffs. It is true that one of the witnesses for the defendant has stated that only the owners of the houses in the Falia can make the use of the Falia open land. He is giving evidence as to what rights the owners of the houses in the Falia have. He is not giving evidence on any question of fact. The question as to who can make uses of the Falia is a question for the Court to decide. It is not a fact on which evidence can be given. In any case this is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to establish their ownership by adverse possession and the burden is on them to prove the title by adverse possession for the requisite period. They led evidence in respect of user by tethering cattle. Such a user does not amount to possession and cannot give rise to adverse possession. No evidence has been led about adverse nature. On both these grounds I must hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by adverse possession.” NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -10- 9. This Court in the case of Bhan Singh vs. Tej Singh, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 46, had categorically held that placing dung cakes, tethering cattle, throwing rubbish or installing pegs may at best be weak evidence of user, but they are not necessarily evidence of legal possession. Rather, in the aforesaid judgment, it was correctly held that there must be evidence of an actual exercise of possession with an intention to retain the property. 10. Further, this Court in Fauja Singh vs. Resham Singh and others, 2010 (22) RCR (Civil) 773, had also reiterated the fact that in case the appellant tethered his cattle or stored dung cakes etc. in the suit land, even such acts would not imply that he was in possession of the suit land, nor would it mean that the owners, including the plaintiffs, have been dispossessed from the suit land. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram (2019) 11 SCC 309 had categorically held that the person claiming protection of possession must establish possession which is (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed and (iii) to the knowledge of the true owner without concealment. It was further held in the aforesaid judgment that the casual or stray act of trespass does not become settled possession merely because it occurred on the property. 12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. 2019(4) RCR(Civil) 1 has held as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 57. “The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to coexist at the same time, namely, necvi i.e. adequate in continuity, necclam i.e., adequate in NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -11- publicity and necprecario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser's long possession is not synonym with adverse possession. Trespasser's possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and the large concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession. 13. Further, this Court in Baldev Sraj and another vs. Chandi Dass 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 814 has held as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “18. On applying the above discussed well established principles of law to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, wherein the appellants claimed possession on the basis of acts of tying cattle and placing cow dung cakes, in the opinion of this Court, on the basis of mere these acts, the appellants could not be held to be in possession of the disputed property as it is also well settled that tethering of cattle or preparing cow dung cakes etc. over an open land cannot be taken as proof of exclusive possession as it is common in the villages to tether cattle and place cow dung cakes in open spaces and the same cannot be allowed to be used as evidence to grab land by any other person. In this regard, NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -12- reliance can further be placed upon judgment dated 01.04.2005 passed by Delhi High Court in RFA No.134 of 1982 titled as Shahabuddin v. State of U.P. and others, wherein similar observations were made. Reliance can also be placed upon Bhan Singh and others v. Tej Singh and others, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 46 wherein a Bench of this Court had observed that mere acts of user, such as throwing rubbish, placing dung cakes, tethering cattles, installation of pegs may be weak links to say that a particular litigant is using the property but such user has to be secluded separately from the acts of possession, for which overt act, it is necessary for the litigant to establish that he had been exercising his possession over the disputed property with the intention to retain it. Therefore, the claim of the appellants based on the plea that they were tethering cattle and placing cow dung cakes over the disputed property cannot be taken to mean their possession over the disputed property in any manner whatsoever. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the appellants failed to produce any convincing, satisfactory and reliable evidence on record to prove that they were in possession of the disputed property and were entitled to retain the same, as against the land in dispute which though is lying open and vacant but which as per presumption of law in favour of the owner would be deemed to be in possession of the respondent-plaintiff. As per the discussion as made above, it is held that the appellants have not been able to establish their title in the disputed property and legality of its possession whereas the evidence produced on record by the respondent with regard to his having title over the disputed property could not be rebutted which also established his possession on the principle that possession followed title. As such, the substantial question of law does not deserve to be decided in favour of the appellants. Rather the same is decided in NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4363-2000 (O&M) -13- favour of the respondent. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.” 14. Coming to the facts of the present case in hand and as per the evidence, if the respondents have been tethering cattle in the suit property, which is under the possession of the present appellant, such act by itself is insufficient to establish settled or lawful possession. The respondents are not stated to be in the legal possession of the suit land. Further, though the respondents had taken a plea that they have become the owners by way of adverse possession, neither their claim was accepted by the First Appellate Court nor was the same challenged before this Court. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that even if the respondents are in possession of the suit property, i.e. if the respondents have been tethering the cattle over the suit land illegally or had erected two ;Chhapers’, this Court, in view of the revenue record in favour of the appellant, cannot legalise the illegal possession of the respondents. 15. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1996, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh, is affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 16. Any miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.09.11 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document