-1- 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4598-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 RAMU ...Appellant Versus GANESHI LAL ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate & Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate Mr. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant- plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2001 passed by the then learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby suit for permanent injunction preferred by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed as well as aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 02.09.2003 passed by the then learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby first appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed. 2. Appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of property bearing No.46 situated at abadi of Fatehpur Billoch, Tehsil Ballabgarh to be owned and possessed by him having been allotted by custodian vide certificate of sale dated 07.08.1961 issued by District Competent Officer, Jullander Camp at Gurgaon. It is the RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4598-2003 (O&M) -2- simple case of appellant-plaintiff that vide sale certificate dated 07.08.1961, he had purchased the suit property measuring 18 x 24 feets bounded by shop of Kachhamal on the eastern side, property of Sharbati on the western side, house of Ram Ji Lal on the northern side and thoroughfare on the southern side and had claimed to be entitled to suit property being owner in possession, and also claimed that respondent-defendant was trying to interfere with his peaceful possession. Reliance was placed by appellant- plaintiff upon site plan Ex.P-1 depicting therein the suit property for which injunction was sought. 3. On the other hand, the case of respondent-defendant was that appellant-plaintiff is trying to grab the property owned by respondent- defendant which he had purchased from Kachhamal on the eastern side of plot bearing No.46 by showing incorrect map and by not filing the correct site plan showing correct dimensions as well as boundaries/demarcation of the suit property. It was claimed that respondent-defendant had purchased land measuring 18 x 25.6 feet from Somvati who had purchased it from Jagdish who in turn got purchased it from Nathi Mal who had purchased it from Shiv Lal and Shiv Lal had purchased it from Kachhamal. It was the case of respondent-defendant-Ganeshi Lal that he is successor-in-interest of Kachhamal as he had purchased the property from Kachhamal. Reliance was placed by him upon sale deed Ex.D-5 showing that property claimed by appellant-plaintiff was purchased by him from Somvati. It was claimed that the property owned by him is adjacent to plot No.46 and in the garb of plot No.46 on the basis of wrong site plan, appellant-plaintiff is trying to grab property of respondent-defendant. 4. Both the Courts below though had found appellant-plaintiff to RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4598-2003 (O&M) -3- be owner of plot No.46 but had rejected the relief of permanent injunction sought by appellant-plaintiff on the ground that appellant-plaintiff is trying to seek injunction regarding property owned by respondent-defendant in the garb of plot No.46 which was allotted to him. It was found that appellant- plaintiff had succeeded to prove that he had purchased plot No.46 from the custodian vide sale certificate dated 07.08.1961, however, had rejected the claim of appellant-plaintiff that respondent-defendant is interfering with his peaceful possession of the property bearing plot No.46. 5. Perusal of sale deed dated 29.09.1995 Ex.D-5 executed by Somvati in fact goes to show that the property claimed by respondent- defendant was bounded by property of Kali Sunar on the eastern side, Ramu on western side, Kali Sunar on the northern and rasta Sare-Aam on the southern side. Respondent-defendant had also placed reliance upon site plan Ex.D-8 showing that appellant-plaintiff is concealing correct boundaries by way of site plan Ex.P-1 placed on record by him. In order to prove chain of sale from Kachhamal, respondent-defendant had also placed on record sale deed dated 29.06.1954 Ex.D-4 which showed that property was sold by Shiv Lal to Nathi Mal. Nathi Mal was succeeded by Jagdish who had sold the same to Somvati vide sale deed Ex.D-3 on 29.05.1992 and Somvati had sold the same to respondent-defendant vide sale deed Ex.D-5 dated 29.09.1997. 6. On examination of Ex.P-1 site plan, Ex.P-3 sale certificate relied upon by appellant-plaintiff and Ex.D-5 sale deed and Ex.D-8 site plan relied upon by respondent-defendant, it is made out that the site plan Ex.P-1 relied upon by appellant-plaintiff does not depict correct boundaries of the property being claimed by appellant-plaintiff. Respondent-defendant- Ganeshi Lal is owner of suit property which is on the east of plot No.46. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4598-2003 (O&M) -4- Ex.P-1 however, shows that on the eastern side of property claimed by appellant-plaintiff, property of Kali Sunar is situated who had purchased it from Kachhamal. However, this fact as shown in Ex.P-1 is totally not in accordance with sale certificate Ex.P-3 wherein shop of Kachhamal is shown on the eastern side and said shop was purchased by Shiv Lal. Site plan Ex.D-8 shows that the property owned by Kachhamal is situated on eastern side, which was purchased by respondent-defendant-Ganeshi Lal through subsequent vendors who had purchased it from Kachhamal whereas, property of Kali Sunar was on the northern side and property of other property of Kali Sunar was on the eastern side. This fact stands fully established by Ex.D-5, the sale deed in favour of respondent-defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendants has fairly submitted that respondent-defendant had never claimed plot No.46 which is stated to be in possession of appellant-plaintiff towards the western side of the suit property owned by respondent-defendant. He claimed on plot No.46 appellant-plaintiff had constructed house thereupon. It is argued that by showing unconstructed plot in Ex.P-1, attempt is being made to grab the property owned by respondent-defendant. 8. Perusal of both the site plans produced by appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant, Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-8 respectively as well as sale deeds Ex.P-3 and Ex.D-5, it is clearly made out that though appellant- plaintiff is owner of plot No.46, and respondent-defendant is owner of plot on the eastern site of plot No.46. Both are in possession of their respective properties and attempt is being made by appellant-plaintiff on the basis of wrong site plan and map to claim property owned by respondent-defendant and therefore, both the Courts have rightly refused to grant injunction in RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4598-2003 (O&M) -5- favour of appellant-plaintiff. 9. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.24 15:02 I agree to specified portions of this document