RSA-721-1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-721-1991 Reserved on 17.09.2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Manjit Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Charan Singh (Since Deceased) Through LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 (i-a), 2(a) 1(ii) and 3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain)ffs have preferred the present Regular Second Ap- peal against the judgment of reversal. Their suit for declara)on and per- manent injunc)on regarding the suit property, which was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 09.03.1989, came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.02.1991, thereby se3ng aside the decree in their favour. 2. Trial Court record has been summoned and examined with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides. For clarity, the par)es are re- ferred to by their status before the Trial Court. 3. The dispute pertains to 45 Kanals of land situated in the rev- enue estate of Village Mainwan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, described in the headnote of the plaint. The land, an evacuee property, was allo9ed in five different por)ons to Sant Ram, Ganpat, Kirpa Ram, Bhag Mal, and Chanan Devi (impleaded inially as defendants No.7 to 11). 4. According to plain)ffs, in 1960, defendant No.1 Charan Singh and Sadhu Singh (father of the plainffs) started cul)va)ng the suit land in Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.22 17:40 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-721-1991 [2] equal shares without permission of any authority. The land was then banjar and uncul)vated. Plain)ffs’ case is that their father’s and defendant No.1’s possession was hos)le and con)nuous. A@er the death of Sadhu Singh in 1980, the plain)ffs succeeded to his share and con)nued in possession of one-half por)on. They alleged that defendants No.2 and 3 (sons of defend- ant No.1) a9empted to alter the khasra Girdawari entries on the basis of forged sale deeds allegedly executed by the original allo9ees in 1983, though the allo9ees had never returned to the village a@er 1961 and some had even predeceased the alleged transac)ons. Plain)ffs, therefore, sought declara)on of ownership and injunc)on to restrain the defendants from ali- ena)ng or interfering in their possession. 5. Defendants No.1 & 3 admi9ed joint cul)va)on with Sadhu Singh but claimed that it was as tenants under the allo9ees, to whom pro- duce was paid. He further asserted that a@er Sadhu Singh’s death, he re- mained in exclusive possession and, along with his sons (defendants No.2 and 3), became owner under registered sale deeds Ex.D-1 to D-5. 6. Defendant No.2 was proceeded ex-parte. Defendants No.4 to 6 filed no wri9en statement. Defendants No.7 to 11 (allo9ees) were later de- leted upon discovery that they had already expired prior to the ins)tu)on of the suit. 7. The Trial Court, upon appraisal of evidence, disbelieved the de- fendants’ case. It found that the sale deeds Ex.D-1 to D-5 were forged, as the supposed executants (the allo9ees) were already dead before the al- leged execu)on, and the a9es)ng witnesses were close rela)ves or associ- ates of defendant No.1. Evidence further proved that the allo9ees had le@ the village a@er 1961 and never returned. Accordingly, the sale deeds were declared null and void. The Trial Court held that plain)ffs and defendant No.1 were in possession of equal shares and, having been in long con)nu- ous and hos)le possession, had perfected ownership by adverse posses- sion. The suit was accordingly decreed. Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.22 17:40 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-721-1991 [3] 8. However, in appeal, though the learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding that the sale deeds were invalid, but it held that since the original allo9ees had died prior to filing of the suit and their legal representa)ves were not impleaded, the plea of ownership by adverse pos- session could not be sustained. The Appellate Court also observed that a@er Sadhu Singh’s death in 1980, the plain)ffs had not got the revenue entries mutated in their favour, implying absence of possession. On these grounds, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 9. Assailing the reversal, learned counsel for the appellants con- tended that although ownership by adverse possession could not be de- clared, the evidence conclusively established plain)ffs’ possession over one-half share inherited from their father. Non-muta)on of revenue entries could not negate actual possession, par)cularly when the defendants’ at- tempt to get khasra Girdawari changed was rejected by the revenue au- thori)es. The plain)ffs, therefore, at least deserved protec)on of their pos- session through injunc)on. 10. A@er considering rival submissions and examining the record, this Court finds merit in the appeal. The revenue entries from 1963–64 to 1983–84 (Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-15) show possession of Sadhu Singh and Charan Singh. The entry of tenancy under the allo9ees is unsupported, since the evidence established that two allo9ees had perished during par))on riots, one died in 1955 and two in 1975. The allo9ees living at the )me of allot- ment visited the village but had le@ the same by 1961, never to return. The claim that they had inducted tenants or received produce is inherently false. 11. The Trial Court rightly held that the tenancy entries were incor- rect and that possession of Sadhu Singh and Charan Singh since 1960 was without permission of anyone. The finding of the Appellate Court that plain)ffs were not in possession merely because they did not mutate entries post-1980 is unsustainable, especially in the face of overwhelming Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.22 17:40 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-721-1991 [4] oral and documentary evidence and the revenue authority’s rejec)on of defendant’s a9empts to alter possession entries. 12. Accordingly, while the finding of the First Appellate Court that plain)ffs cannot be declared owners by way of adverse possession is up- held, its finding denying plain)ff’s possession is set aside. The plain)ffs are held to be in possession of one-half share of the suit land inherited from their father. 13. In consequence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and de- cree of the First Appellate Court are set aside to the extent indicated above. Plain)ff’s possession over one-half share of the suit land is protected, and a decree of permanent injunc)on is passed restraining defendants from ali- ena)ng the land, crea)ng encumbrances, or disturbing the plain)ff’s pos- session in respect of their one-half share. Decree sheet be drawn accord- ingly. 22.09.2025. (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.22 17:40 I agree to specified portions of this document