RSA-464-1990 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 Chandgi Ram(since diseased) through LRs and others Udmi(since diseased) through LRs CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mr. for the *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1990 passed by the vide which the appeal preferred by and decree dated 20.01.1988 permanent injunction fil allowed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are owned and possessed by the respondent appellants-defendants were adamant to raise construction on the said land forcibly and illegally without obtaining any prior partition order. For this purpose, the appellants-defendants had collected bricks at the site foundations. The respondent 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-464 Date of Decision:11.09.2025 Chandgi Ram(since diseased) through LRs and others Versus Udmi(since diseased) through LRs HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Mr. Gurdeep Bidhan, Advocate for the respondent. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1990 passed by the vide which the appeal preferred by the respondent and decree dated 20.01.1988 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby su permanent injunction filed by the respondent Succinctly, the facts of the case are owned and possessed by the respondent-plaintiff and appellants defendants were adamant to raise construction on the said land forcibly and illegally without obtaining any prior partition order. For this purpose, the defendants had collected bricks at the site foundations. The respondent-plaintiff repeatedly requested the appellants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 464-1990 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.09.2025 Chandgi Ram(since diseased) through LRs and others ... Appellants ...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1990 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court respondent-plaintiff against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit for ed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, has been Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the suit land was jointly intiff and appellants-defendants. The defendants were adamant to raise construction on the said land forcibly and illegally without obtaining any prior partition order. For this purpose, the defendants had collected bricks at the site and were intending to dig plaintiff repeatedly requested the appellants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the Appellate Court plaintiff against the judgment it for plaintiff was dismissed, has been the suit land was jointly defendants. The defendants were adamant to raise construction on the said land forcibly and illegally without obtaining any prior partition order. For this purpose, the and were intending to dig plaintiff repeatedly requested the appellants- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-464-1990 (O&M) defendants not to proceed with such construction, but they refused to accede. Hence, leading to institution of the present suit. 3. Upon notice of the suit, appellants written statement taking objection that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land and that the jamabandi entries in his favour are incorrect. It was averred that the parties are descen owners in equal shares, and that the share of Lakhi devolved upon his legal heirs, who are in possession. It was further pleaded that Jawana, Ramzan and Udmi, sons of Kimu, mortgaged their 1/8th share and thereafter Ramzan and Jawana migrated to Pakistan in 1952 was redeemed by the Custodian Department vide order dated 07.06.1956, and mutation was sanctioned on 30.07.1956. The land was then Singh on 12.05.1960, and later purchased by Gopala and Jati on 19.12.1960 for Rs.1350/-, with corresponding entries made in the revenue record. It was thus contended that since the plaintiff and his brothers had already mortgaged and parted with their share, he has no subsisting right in the land. By way of additional objections, it is contended that the plaintiff had earlier sought partition before the revenue authorities, but his application, appeal and revision were dismissed, and therefore the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. All other averments of the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as five issues includin evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff 1990 (O&M) -2- defendants not to proceed with such construction, but they refused to accede. Hence, leading to institution of the present suit. Upon notice of the suit, appellants written statement taking objection that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land and that the jamabandi entries in his favour are incorrect. It was averred that the parties are descendants of Makhna and Sadhu, sons of Alam Khan, who were owners in equal shares, and that the share of Lakhi devolved upon his legal heirs, who are in possession. It was further pleaded that Jawana, Ramzan and Udmi, sons of Kimu, mortgaged their 1/8th share to Gopala and Jati, sons of Matu, for Rs.225/ and thereafter Ramzan and Jawana migrated to Pakistan in 1952 was redeemed by the Custodian Department vide order dated 07.06.1956, and mutation was sanctioned on 30.07.1956. The land was then Singh on 12.05.1960, and later purchased by Gopala and Jati on 19.12.1960 for , with corresponding entries made in the revenue record. It was thus contended that since the plaintiff and his brothers had already mortgaged and ted with their share, he has no subsisting right in the land. By way of additional objections, it is contended that the plaintiff had earlier sought partition before the revenue authorities, but his application, appeal and revision were dismissed, and efore the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. All other averments of the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as five issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff whereas the appeal preferred by the defendants not to proceed with such construction, but they refused to accede. Upon notice of the suit, appellants–defendants appeared and filed written statement taking objection that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land and that the jamabandi entries in his favour are incorrect. It was averred that dants of Makhna and Sadhu, sons of Alam Khan, who were owners in equal shares, and that the share of Lakhi devolved upon his legal heirs, who are in possession. It was further pleaded that Jawana, Ramzan and Udmi, sons to Gopala and Jati, sons of Matu, for Rs.225/ and thereafter Ramzan and Jawana migrated to Pakistan in 1952-53. The mortgage was redeemed by the Custodian Department vide order dated 07.06.1956, and mutation was sanctioned on 30.07.1956. The land was then allotted to Anokh Singh on 12.05.1960, and later purchased by Gopala and Jati on 19.12.1960 for , with corresponding entries made in the revenue record. It was thus contended that since the plaintiff and his brothers had already mortgaged and ted with their share, he has no subsisting right in the land. By way of additional objections, it is contended that the plaintiff had earlier sought partition before the revenue authorities, but his application, appeal and revision were dismissed, and efore the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. All other averments of the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as g relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the whereas the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff defendants not to proceed with such construction, but they refused to accede. defendants appeared and filed written statement taking objection that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land and that the jamabandi entries in his favour are incorrect. It was averred that dants of Makhna and Sadhu, sons of Alam Khan, who were owners in equal shares, and that the share of Lakhi devolved upon his legal heirs, who are in possession. It was further pleaded that Jawana, Ramzan and Udmi, sons to Gopala and Jati, sons of Matu, for Rs.225/- 53. The mortgage was redeemed by the Custodian Department vide order dated 07.06.1956, and allotted to Anokh Singh on 12.05.1960, and later purchased by Gopala and Jati on 19.12.1960 for , with corresponding entries made in the revenue record. It was thus contended that since the plaintiff and his brothers had already mortgaged and ted with their share, he has no subsisting right in the land. By way of additional objections, it is contended that the plaintiff had earlier sought partition before the revenue authorities, but his application, appeal and revision were dismissed, and efore the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. All other averments On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as g relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-464-1990 (O&M) allowed by the learned 1 the present regular second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, learned 1st Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well learned trial Court It is submitted that the suit land was allotted to Anokh Singh by the Custodian Department and was purchased by the appellants sale deed Ex.D/9, thereby establish plaintiff is neither owner nor co defendants’ application to produce the Custodian’s allotment letter, a crucial public document, was wrongly dismissed by the respondent-plaintiff had been dismissed at all stages, which clearly negates his claim. It is, therefore, urged that the findings of the oral and documentary evidence, be restored and the judgment of the Appellate Court be set aside. genuine dispute with suit for simplicitor injunction is not maintainable. on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another (2019) 17 SCC 692, Ka Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent the learned trial Court erred in ignoring the revenue record 1964-65 up to 1979 1990 (O&M) -3- allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court. Hence, the appellants the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants, ppellate Court erred in setting aside the well trial Court without appreciating the facts, evidence and prior proceedings. It is submitted that the suit land was allotted to Anokh Singh by the Custodian Department and was purchased by the appellants sale deed Ex.D/9, thereby establishing their ownership, while the respondent plaintiff is neither owner nor co-sharer. It is furthe application to produce the Custodian’s allotment letter, a crucial public document, was wrongly dismissed by the learned 1 plaintiff’s earlier partition proceedings before the revenue authorities had been dismissed at all stages, which clearly negates his claim. It is, therefore, urged that the findings of the learned trial Cour oral and documentary evidence, be restored and the judgment of the ppellate Court be set aside. It is also submitted that where the defendant raises genuine dispute with regard to title and raises a cloud o suit for simplicitor injunction is not maintainable. on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another (2019) 17 SCC 692, Ka Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349. Learned counsel for the respondent rial Court erred in ignoring the revenue record 65 up to 1979-80 consistently record the plaintiff as co ourt. Hence, the appellants–defendants filed Learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, contends that the ppellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the without appreciating the facts, evidence and prior proceedings. It is submitted that the suit land was allotted to Anokh Singh by the Custodian Department and was purchased by the appellants-defendants through registered ing their ownership, while the respondent sharer. It is further submitted that the appellants application to produce the Custodian’s allotment letter, a crucial public rned 1st Appellate Court. Lastly, the earlier partition proceedings before the revenue authorities had been dismissed at all stages, which clearly negates his claim. It is, therefore, trial Court, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, be restored and the judgment of the learned 1 It is also submitted that where the defendant raises regard to title and raises a cloud over the title of plaintiff, then suit for simplicitor injunction is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another (2019) 17 SCC 692, Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, inter alia, contends that rial Court erred in ignoring the revenue record, as jamabandis from 80 consistently record the plaintiff as co-sharer in possession defendants filed , contends that the reasoned judgment of the without appreciating the facts, evidence and prior proceedings. It is submitted that the suit land was allotted to Anokh Singh by the Custodian defendants through registered ing their ownership, while the respondent- r submitted that the appellants- application to produce the Custodian’s allotment letter, a crucial public e Court. Lastly, the earlier partition proceedings before the revenue authorities had been dismissed at all stages, which clearly negates his claim. It is, therefore, t, based on proper appreciation of learned 1st It is also submitted that where the defendant raises a , then Reliance in this regard is placed Jharkhand State yalulla Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. , contends that amabandis from sharer in possession PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-464-1990 (O&M) of the suit khasra numbers, and It is urged that the documents relied upon by the appellants, being old mutations and parat patwar order dated 07.06.1956, which has not been produced since the plaintiff admittedly never migrated to Pakistan, his rights could not be extinguished, and in any case, later entries in the revenue record must prevail over earlier ones. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the p record, with able assistance, t raised by learned counsel for the appellants Appellate Court documentary evidence Appellate Court has meticulously examined the revenue records, including jamabandis Ex.P respondent-plaintiff as one of the co numbers. The plea of the appellants right on account of rightly been disbelieved that the respondent divested of his ownership rights. 8. The reliance of the appellants proceedings was also correctly held to be irrelevant, as the Assistant Collector had merely observed that the question of title had arisen, without adjudicating upon the proprietary rights of the respondent regarding rejec 1990 (O&M) -4- of the suit khasra numbers, and khasra girdawaris also corroborate his possession. It is urged that the documents relied upon by the appellants, being old mutations parat patwar entries, are inconsequential in the absence of the Custodian’s order dated 07.06.1956, which has not been produced since the plaintiff admittedly never migrated to Pakistan, his rights could not be extinguished, and in any case, later entries in the revenue record must prevail over Having heard learned counsel for the p record, with able assistance, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants ppellate Court has failed to correctly appreciate evidence, cannot be sustained. On the contrary, the ppellate Court has meticulously examined the revenue records, including jamabandis Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-7 to Ex.P laintiff as one of the co-sharers in possession of the disputed khasra numbers. The plea of the appellants-defendants that the respondent right on account of redemption of mortgage by the Custodian rightly been disbelieved, as no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish that the respondent-plaintiff, who admittedly did not migrate to Pakistan, had been divested of his ownership rights. The reliance of the appellants was also correctly held to be irrelevant, as the Assistant Collector had merely observed that the question of title had arisen, without adjudicating upon the proprietary rights of the respondent-plaintiff. Equally untenable is the grievance regarding rejection of the application for additional evidence. The documents irdawaris also corroborate his possession. It is urged that the documents relied upon by the appellants, being old mutations entries, are inconsequential in the absence of the Custodian’s order dated 07.06.1956, which has not been produced. It is further submitted that since the plaintiff admittedly never migrated to Pakistan, his rights could not be extinguished, and in any case, later entries in the revenue record must prevail over Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the his Court finds no merit in the appeal. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that the learned 1 appreciate the facts as well as oral and cannot be sustained. On the contrary, the learned 1 ppellate Court has meticulously examined the revenue records, including 7 to Ex.P-9, which consistently show the sharers in possession of the disputed khasra defendants that the respondent-plaintiff lost his mortgage by the Custodian Department , as no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish plaintiff, who admittedly did not migrate to Pakistan, had been The reliance of the appellants-defendants on earlier partition was also correctly held to be irrelevant, as the Assistant Collector had merely observed that the question of title had arisen, without adjudicating upon the plaintiff. Equally untenable is the grievance tion of the application for additional evidence. The documents irdawaris also corroborate his possession. It is urged that the documents relied upon by the appellants, being old mutations entries, are inconsequential in the absence of the Custodian’s . It is further submitted that since the plaintiff admittedly never migrated to Pakistan, his rights could not be extinguished, and in any case, later entries in the revenue record must prevail over arties and upon perusal of the his Court finds no merit in the appeal. The contention learned 1st s well as oral and learned 1st ppellate Court has meticulously examined the revenue records, including 9, which consistently show the sharers in possession of the disputed khasra plaintiff lost his has , as no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish plaintiff, who admittedly did not migrate to Pakistan, had been defendants on earlier partition was also correctly held to be irrelevant, as the Assistant Collector had merely observed that the question of title had arisen, without adjudicating upon the plaintiff. Equally untenable is the grievance tion of the application for additional evidence. The documents PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-464-1990 (O&M) sought to be produced were either pertaining to old khasra numbers, suffered from lack of link evidence, or could not connect the disputed land with the alleged allotment. Pertinently, the mate Department was never produced, and no explanation was offered as to why such document could not be filed. The rejected the applications, applying the settle cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to fill lacunae in the case. placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Board Vs. Didar Singh (2019) 17 SCC 692, Kayalulla Paramba Namboodiyil Vinodan, and Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand (1993) 4 SCC349 is wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. pertain to principles of title and ownership or the scope of injunction in circumstances where the plaintiff failed to establish any subsisting right, however, here, the respondent from 1964-65 to 1979 corroborated further 9. In view of the consistent revenue entries in favour of the respondent plaintiff, and the absence of any convincing material from the appellants defendants to rebut the same, the finding of the respondent-plaintiff had no concern with the suit land was wholly unsustainable. The learned 1st holding that the respondent defendants have no right to raise construction over the joint land without partition. 1990 (O&M) -5- sought to be produced were either pertaining to old khasra numbers, suffered from lack of link evidence, or could not connect the disputed land with the alleged allotment. Pertinently, the material order dated 07.06.1956 was never produced, and no explanation was offered as to why such could not be filed. The learned 1st rejected the applications, applying the settled principle that additional evidence cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to fill lacunae in the case. placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Board Vs. Didar Singh (2019) 17 SCC 692, Kayalulla Paramba Namboodiyil Vinodan, and Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand (1993) 4 is wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. pertain to principles of title and ownership or the scope of injunction in es where the plaintiff failed to establish any subsisting right, however, here, the respondent-plaintiff has consistently been reflected in the Jamabandis 65 to 1979-80 as a co-sharer in possession of the suit khasra numbers, corroborated further by the khasra girdawaris. In view of the consistent revenue entries in favour of the respondent plaintiff, and the absence of any convincing material from the appellants defendants to rebut the same, the finding of the plaintiff had no concern with the suit land was wholly unsustainable. st Appellate Court was justified in reversing those findings and holding that the respondent-plaintiff is a co defendants have no right to raise construction over the joint land without partition. sought to be produced were either pertaining to old khasra numbers, suffered from lack of link evidence, or could not connect the disputed land with the alleged rial order dated 07.06.1956 passed by the Custodian was never produced, and no explanation was offered as to why such Appellate Court, therefore, rightly d principle that additional evidence cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to fill lacunae in the case. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh (2019) 17 SCC 692, Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, and Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand (1993) 4 is wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. The cited authorities pertain to principles of title and ownership or the scope of injunction in es where the plaintiff failed to establish any subsisting right, however, plaintiff has consistently been reflected in the Jamabandis sharer in possession of the suit khasra numbers, In view of the consistent revenue entries in favour of the respondent plaintiff, and the absence of any convincing material from the appellants defendants to rebut the same, the finding of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit land was wholly unsustainable. ppellate Court was justified in reversing those findings and plaintiff is a co-sharer, and that the appellan defendants have no right to raise construction over the joint land without partition. sought to be produced were either pertaining to old khasra numbers, suffered from lack of link evidence, or could not connect the disputed land with the alleged passed by the Custodian was never produced, and no explanation was offered as to why such ppellate Court, therefore, rightly d principle that additional evidence The reliance Jharkhand State Housing th Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, and Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Ratan Chand (1993) 4 The cited authorities pertain to principles of title and ownership or the scope of injunction in es where the plaintiff failed to establish any subsisting right, however, plaintiff has consistently been reflected in the Jamabandis sharer in possession of the suit khasra numbers, In view of the consistent revenue entries in favour of the respondent- plaintiff, and the absence of any convincing material from the appellants- trial Court that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit land was wholly unsustainable. ppellate Court was justified in reversing those findings and sharer, and that the appellants- defendants have no right to raise construction over the joint land without partition. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-464-1990 (O&M) 10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the judgment 23.01.1990 passed by correct appreciation of 11. Accordingly, regular second appeal is dismissed. 12. Miscellaneous application(s), September 11, Pankaj* 1990 (O&M) -6- Accordingly, this Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is well reasoned and based on iation of evidence, thus, no ground is made out to interfere. Accordingly, regular second appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application(s), pending (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL September 11, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Accordingly, this Court finds that the judgment and decree dated ppellate Court is well reasoned and based on no ground is made out to interfere. Accordingly, regular second appeal is dismissed. pending if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No and decree dated ppellate Court is well reasoned and based on if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh