113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-591-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.01.2026 JOGINDER SINGH .... Appellant VERSUS SAVITA AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a declaration to the effect that GPA No.450 dated 30.03.1964 executed by Gurumukh Dass in favour of defendant-respondent No.3 was illegal, null and void and the sale deeds dated 29.08.2012 executed in favour of defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 of total land measuring 9 Kanal 11 Marla as fully described in the plaint were illegal, null and void. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant was that the father of the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Amar Singh, was a tenant over the land in dispute for the last 55-60 years on the basis of batai-tihai under the earlier owners, namely, Karpa Ram and Gurumukh Dass and since then he AMAN JAIN 2026.01.28 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment RSA-591-2022 (O&M) -2- had been in cultivating possession of the above suit property and was regularly paying batai-tihai. After the death of his father, the tenancy rights devolved upon the plaintiff-appellant and his brothers. One of the brothers, namely, Devraj died issueless and the plaintiff-appellant and his brother, namely, Ravinder Singh were in cultivating possession of the suit property on the same terms and conditions. It was further the case that defendant-respondents had secretly and in collusion managed to get the sale deeds executed in their favour from the earlier owners without the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant regarding the whole land and as such the sale deeds in favour of defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 were illegal, null and void. It was further the case that an injunction suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant which was decreed on 11.04.2016 and the defendants therein were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellant and not to dispossess him except in due course of law. 3. Defendant-respondent No.1 filed written statement. It was the case set up by the defendant-respondent No.1 that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner in possession of any part of the suit property and that the actual and physical possession of the suit property had been with the defendant- respondents since the date of the sale deeds. On merits the tenancy of the father of the plaintiff-appellant was denied and even his possession was denied. Defendant-respondent No.2 filed his separate written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was the case set up by defendant- respondent No.2 that the plaintiff-appellant was never in possession of the suit property and that the entries in the revenue record were also wrong and were AMAN JAIN 2026.01.28 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment RSA-591-2022 (O&M) -3- liable to be corrected. Defendant-respondent No.3 also filed his separate written statement raising various preliminary objections including the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. On merits it was the stand taken that the suit property was never given on batai-tihai to the father of the plaintiff- appellant. Further it was stated that the general power of attorney and the sale deeds were valid documents and were duly registered. 4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit ? OPD 6. Relief. 5. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff-appellant had no concern with the ownership of the suit property and that he had himself stated that he was a tenant in the suit property. It was further held that no ground had been disclosed for challenging the validity of the general power of attorney and the sale deeds. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the learned First AMAN JAIN 2026.01.28 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment RSA-591-2022 (O&M) -4- Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that the plaintiff-appellant has been in possession of the suit property for the last 55-60 years and that without any information to him, the suit property had been sold and as such the general power of attorney on the basis of which the sale deeds were executed and the sale deeds were illegal, null and void. 7. Heard. 8. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant had claimed himself to being a tenant over the suit property on batai-tihai and has not disputed the ownership of Karpa Ram and Gurumukh Dass. A suit was earlier filed by the plaintiff-appellant for injunction in which a decree was passed on 11.04.2016 holding that the plaintiff-appellant be not dispossessed except in due course of law. The plaintiff-appellant, not being the owner, cannot possibly challenge the general power of attorney executed by Gurumukh Dass in favour of defendant-respondent No.3, namely, Kirpa Ram and the subsequent sale deeds. Infact, no cogent reason is forthcoming as to why the general power of attorney and the sale deeds should be set aside. Even today learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, except for stating that father of the plaintiff- appellant was a tenant in the suit property, has not been able to point out to any reason as to why the general power of attorney and the sale deeds were not validly executed. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for AMAN JAIN 2026.01.28 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment RSA-591-2022 (O&M) -5- determination in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 27.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2026.01.28 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment