RSA No.2476 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 105 Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs Smadh Baba Jagro 2. RSA Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs Smadh Baba Jagroop Dass and others 3. COCP No.484 of 2001 (O&M) Sukhchain Dass and another Surjeet Dass Chela Tulsi Dass Chela CORAM: Present: AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 2476 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. Date of Decision:02.09.2025 Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs Vs Smadh Baba Jagroop Dass and others RSA No.2477 of 2000 (O&M) Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs Vs Smadh Baba Jagroop Dass and others COCP No.484 of 2001 (O&M) Sukhchain Dass and another Vs Surjeet Dass Chela Tulsi Dass Chela Nihal Dass HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000 and for the petitioners in COCP No.484 of 2001. Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate for Mr. Anmol Singh Dhillon, Advocate for appellant No.2 (respondent No.5 transposed as appellant No.2 vide order dated 10.08.2000). Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000. -.- AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. (ORAL) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2476 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.09.2025 ...Appellant ...Respondents ...Appellant ...Respondents ...Petitioners Nihal Dass and others ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000 and petitioners in COCP No.484 of 2001. Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate for Mr. Anmol Singh Dhillon, Advocate for appellant No.2 (respondent No.5 transposed as appellant 10.08.2000). Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000. (ORAL) for appellant No.2 (respondent No.5 transposed as appellant PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 1. No.2476 & 2477 of 2000 as they arise from are being enumerated from RSA No.2476 of 2000 2. appellant-defendant against the passed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the and agents from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs property ha decree of th into appeals Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and toto. The contempt petition has been preferred by Sukhchain Dass and Pritam Kaur, legal representatives of appellant disobedience of order dat of respondents 3. terms of their status before the learned trial Court. 4. seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them, their agents and servants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit properties as mentioned in the head note of both suits, de 2476 of 2000 -2- This order will dispose of two regular second appeals bearing No.2476 & 2477 of 2000 and a contempt petition bearing No.484 of 2001, as they arise from the same proceedings. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being enumerated from RSA No.2476 of 2000 The instant regular second appeal defendant against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the learned trial Court whereby plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the and agents from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs have been partly decreed and aga he learned trial Court, both the plaintiffs and defendants went into appeals and vide judgment dated 29.03.2000, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and ulti The contempt petition has been preferred by Sukhchain Dass and Pritam Kaur, legal representatives of appellant disobedience of order dated 24.07.2000 passed by this Court respondents-plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. In brief, the facts are that two suits were filed seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them, their agents and servants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit properties as mentioned in the head note of both suits, details of which are as under:- This order will dispose of two regular second appeals bearing contempt petition bearing No.484 of 2001, the same proceedings. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being enumerated from RSA No.2476 of 2000. The instant regular second appeals have been preferred by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 learned trial Court whereby two suits filed by respondents- plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs in the suit ainst the aforesaid judgment and oth the plaintiffs and defendants went and vide judgment dated 29.03.2000, the learned 1st Appellate dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal imately, the suit was decreed in The contempt petition has been preferred by Sukhchain Dass and Pritam Kaur, legal representatives of appellant-defendant for willful ed 24.07.2000 passed by this Court at the instance For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. facts are that two suits were filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them, their agents and servants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit properties as mentioned in the head note - This order will dispose of two regular second appeals bearing contempt petition bearing No.484 of 2001, the same proceedings. For the sake of brevity, the facts been preferred by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 - defendants, their servants the suit d oth the plaintiffs and defendants went Appellate dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal was decreed in The contempt petition has been preferred by Sukhchain Dass and defendant for willful at the instance For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them, their agents and servants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit properties as mentioned in the head note PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 5. plaintiff No.2 Dass situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur was in possession of the suit land including the residential house as shown in the site plan and as enumerated herein above and was owned by plaintiff No.1 2476 of 2000 -3- “Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs from the residential house as shown in the attached site plan and the agricultural land comprised of Khewat Khata No.164/254 mustil 27//killa No.11/8 12, 20/8-0, 21/6-0, 22/8-0, 23/7 No.15/2/4-0, 16/8-0, 17/8-0, 18/8 25/8-0, mustil 37//killa No.3/8 71//killa No.9/0-2, mutil 74//killa No.33/0 No.255 mustil 38//kila No.1/8 khatouni No.256 mustil 38//killa 9/7 37//killa No.15/8-0, total measuring 186 kanals 8 m situated within the revenue estate of village La Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from land comprised of khewat/khatouni No.164/254, Rect. 27//Killa No.21(6-0), 26 (2-0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur Sub The. Amloh, District Patiala, two electric motors 5 B.H.P. along with their respective kothas and two rooms of sevens khans each installed/located in the above land.” In brief, the facts of Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 plaintiff No.2-Surjit Singh, being the Mohatm Dass situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur was in possession of the suit land including the residential house as shown in the site plan and as enumerated herein above and was owned by plaintiff No.1 Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs from the residential house as shown in the plan and the agricultural land comprised of Khata No.164/254 mustil 27//killa No.11/8-0, 19/7- 0, 23/7-4, 26/2-0, mustil 28//kila 0, 18/8-0, 19/8-0, 23/8-0, 24/8-0, 0, mustil 37//killa No.3/8-0, 4/8-0, 5/8-0, 6/8-0, mustil 2, mutil 74//killa No.33/0-14, khatouni No.255 mustil 38//kila No.1/8-0, 2/8-0, 3/1/7-4, 10/8-0, khatouni No.256 mustil 38//killa 9/7-12, khatouni 257 mustil 0, total measuring 186 kanals 8 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Ladpur Sub Teh. Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession the plaintiff and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from land comprised of khewat/khatouni No.164/254, Rect. 0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur Sub The. Amloh, District Patiala, two .P. along with their respective kothas and two rooms of sevens khans each installed/located in the of Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 are that Mohatmim of Samadh Baba Jagroop Dass situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur was in possession of the suit land including the residential house as shown in the site plan and as enumerated herein above and was owned by plaintiff No.1-Samadh Baba Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs from the residential house as shown in the plan and the agricultural land comprised of - 0, mustil 28//kila 0, 0, mustil 14, khatouni 0, 12, khatouni 257 mustil arlas pur Sub Teh. Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession the plaintiff and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from land comprised of khewat/khatouni No.164/254, Rect. 0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur Sub The. Amloh, District Patiala, two .P. along with their respective kothas and two rooms of sevens khans each installed/located in the are that of Samadh Baba Jagroop Dass situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur was in possession of the suit land including the residential house as shown in the site plan and as Samadh Baba PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 Jagroop Dass. land for irrigation purpose. Defendants were trying to grab the suit land as well as the residential house with the help of police. They also filed a false complaint and one ASI accompanied by some police officia plaintiff No.2 and forcibly obtained his thumb impression on some blank papers at gun since they did not pay any heed and to dispossess them from the suit property, instant suits were filed. 6. denied the fact that plaintiff No.2 was and asserte possession of the land as comprised in mustil No.38//killa No.1/8 3/1/7-4, 9/7 defendants were also in possession of the house as owner electric motors. Replication to the written stat controverting the stand taken by defendants in the written statement and contents of the plaint were reiterated. 7. mentioned therein has already been included in details suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991. In addition thereto, was sought with respect to dispossession from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P along with kothas, two rooms of 7 khans each installed/located in the suit land. It Singh was the real son of plaintiff No.2 and in connivance with defendant 2476 of 2000 -4- Dass. Further, two electric motors were also installed in the suit land for irrigation purpose. Defendants were trying to grab the suit land as well as the residential house with the help of police. They also filed a false complaint and one ASI accompanied by some police officia plaintiff No.2 and forcibly obtained his thumb impression on some blank gunpoint. They were requested not to take law in their since they did not pay any heed and continuously ess them from the suit property, instant suits were filed. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denied the fact that plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmi ed that it was defendant No.1 possession of the land as comprised in mustil No.38//killa No.1/8 4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0 since the year 1976 defendants were also in possession of the house as owner electric motors. Replication to the written stat controverting the stand taken by defendants in the written statement and contents of the plaint were reiterated. In another suit bearing No.729 dated 22.10.1990, the land mentioned therein has already been included in details suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991. In addition thereto, was sought with respect to dispossession from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P along with kothas, two rooms of 7 khans each installed/located in the suit land. It was also pleaded in this suit that defendant No.1 Singh was the real son of plaintiff No.2 and in connivance with defendant ic motors were also installed in the suit land for irrigation purpose. Defendants were trying to grab the suit land as well as the residential house with the help of police. They also filed a false complaint and one ASI accompanied by some police officials rounded up plaintiff No.2 and forcibly obtained his thumb impression on some blank point. They were requested not to take law in their hands but continuously threatened the plaintiffs ess them from the suit property, instant suits were filed. contested the suit by filing written statement and Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh it was defendant No.1-Gurmeet Singh, who was in possession of the land as comprised in mustil No.38//killa No.1/8-0, 2/8-0, 0 since the year 1976-77 and further that the defendants were also in possession of the house as owners as well as of the electric motors. Replication to the written statement was filed by plaintiffs controverting the stand taken by defendants in the written statement and In another suit bearing No.729 dated 22.10.1990, the land mentioned therein has already been included in details of suit property of suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991. In addition thereto, permanent injunction was sought with respect to dispossession from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P along with kothas, two rooms of 7 khans each installed/located in was also pleaded in this suit that defendant No.1-Gurmeet Singh was the real son of plaintiff No.2 and in connivance with defendant ic motors were also installed in the suit land for irrigation purpose. Defendants were trying to grab the suit land as well as the residential house with the help of police. They also filed a false ls rounded up plaintiff No.2 and forcibly obtained his thumb impression on some blank hands but the plaintiffs and Samadh Gurmeet Singh, who was in 0, e the ement was filed by plaintiffs controverting the stand taken by defendants in the written statement and In another suit bearing No.729 dated 22.10.1990, the land of suit property of permanent injunction was sought with respect to dispossession from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P along with kothas, two rooms of 7 khans each installed/located in Gurmeet Singh was the real son of plaintiff No.2 and in connivance with defendant PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 No.2-Surjit Kaur, he was keeping bad eye on the suit property with intention to grab the same. 8. preliminary objections qua maintainability, barred by Section 10 CPC and locus standi plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit property. 9. in both the suits was moved for consolidation of both suits, as the suit property was same as well as issues for consideration were common. was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1993 with a direction that the evidence will be recorded only in the main case i.e. Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 2476 of 2000 -5- Surjit Kaur, he was keeping bad eye on the suit property with intention to grab the same. In the written statement filed by defendants, besides taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability, barred by Section 10 CPC and locus standi, on merit, it was denied that plaintiff No.2 was plaintiff No.1-Samadh and asserted that defendant No.1 possession of the suit property. From the pleadings of the parties, in both the suits, however, during the pendency of civil suits, an application was moved for consolidation of both suits, as the suit property was same as l as issues for consideration were common. was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1993 with a direction that the evidence will be recorded only in the main case i.e. Civil Suit No.139 dated and in the said suit, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the property in dispute except the residential house? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff No.2 is in possession of the property in dispute as Mohatmim? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainab 4. Whether the plaintiffs are requested for? 4A. Whether the pleas taken by the defendants in the amended written statement are barred by principle of res judicata? OPP 4B. Whether the defendants are stopped by conduct from taking pleas in the amended written statement? OPP 5. Relief. Surjit Kaur, he was keeping bad eye on the suit property with an nt filed by defendants, besides taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability, barred by Section 10 CPC and , on merit, it was denied that plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of that defendant No.1-Gurmeet Singh From the pleadings of the parties, separate issues were framed , however, during the pendency of civil suits, an application was moved for consolidation of both suits, as the suit property was same as l as issues for consideration were common. The aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1993 with a direction that the evidence will be recorded only in the main case i.e. Civil Suit No.139 dated issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the property in dispute except the residential house? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff No.2 is in possession of the property in 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as 4A. Whether the pleas taken by the defendants in the amended written statement are barred by principle of res judicata? 4B. Whether the defendants are stopped by their act and conduct from taking pleas in the amended written statement? an nt filed by defendants, besides taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability, barred by Section 10 CPC and of Gurmeet Singh separate issues were framed , however, during the pendency of civil suits, an application was moved for consolidation of both suits, as the suit property was same as The aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1993 with a direction that the evidence will be recorded only in the main case i.e. Civil Suit No.139 dated “1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the property in 2. Whether the plaintiff No.2 is in possession of the property in entitled to the injunction as 4A. Whether the pleas taken by the defendants in the amended written statement are barred by principle of res judicata? their act and conduct from taking pleas in the amended written statement? PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 10. framed:- 11. learned trial Court decreed the restraining the defendant the possession of plaintiffs qua suit property except part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.38/1(8 measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas, meaning thereby, suit qua the suit land was dismissed; whereas was decreed fully. 12. the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the learned trial Court Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was 2476 of 2000 -6- In Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990, following issues were “1. Whether plaintiff No.2 is Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 Samadh? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? OPD 4. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed U/S 10 of the CPC? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as requested for? OPP 6. Relief.” On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994, decreed the Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs qua suit property except part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1(7 measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas, meaning thereby, suit qua the suit land was dismissed; whereas Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 was decreed fully. Both the plaintiffs and defendants went into appeals against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the learned and vide judgment dated 29.03.2000, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was In Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990, following issues were “1. Whether plaintiff No.2 is Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 plaintiffs are in possession of the suit 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? 4. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed U/S 10 of the CPC? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994, partly Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 for permanent injunction s, their servants and agents from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs qua suit property except part of the suit land as 0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), total measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas, meaning thereby, suit qua aforesaid part of Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 Both the plaintiffs and defendants went into appeals against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the learned and vide judgment dated 29.03.2000, the learned 1st Appellate dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was In Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990, following issues were “1. Whether plaintiff No.2 is Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 plaintiffs are in possession of the suit 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? 4. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed U/S 10 of the CPC? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the partly for permanent injunction s, their servants and agents from interfering into as 0), total aforesaid part of Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 Both the plaintiffs and defendants went into appeals against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the learned Appellate dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 decreed in toto. approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeals. 13. Ritvik Garg, Advocate submits that the learned 1 erred in decreeing the su defendant No.1 had duly proved possession of land comprised in Khatoni No.255, mustil No.38/ Furthermore, defendant No.1 had been in possession of the since 1976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, thus, his possession was hostile and continued, which ought to have been protected. have not rendered any finding on the issue whether plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim finding, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction was wrongly decreed. unanimously decided t No.1-Samadh and in pursuance thereto, the community of Shri Garib Dass Jee appointed defendant No.1 as also argued that report of local commissioner has been wrongly discarded by both the Courts belo 14. that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, no interference is required in the regular second appeals 15. through paper book 2476 of 2000 -7- decreed in toto. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants have approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeals. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate submits that the learned 1 erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in toto by ignoring the fact that defendant No.1 had duly proved possession of land comprised in Khatoni No.255, mustil No.38//Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8 Furthermore, defendant No.1 had been in possession of the since 1976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, thus, his possession was hostile and continued, which ought to have been protected. not rendered any finding on the issue whether plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh and in the absence of any such the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction was wrongly decreed. In fact, on 21.09.1999, panchayats of various villages unanimously decided to appoint defendant No.1 as Samadh and in pursuance thereto, the community of Shri Garib Dass Jee appointed defendant No.1 as Mohatmim also argued that report of local commissioner has been wrongly discarded by both the Courts below. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, no interference is required in the regular second appeals filed by the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for through paper book with their able assistance he same, the defendants have approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeals. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate submits that the learned 1st Appellate Court gravely it of the plaintiffs in toto by ignoring the fact that defendant No.1 had duly proved possession of land comprised in Khatoni 0), 2(8-0), 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0. Furthermore, defendant No.1 had been in possession of the aforesaid land since 1976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, thus, his possession was hostile and continued, which ought to have been protected. Both the Courts below not rendered any finding on the issue whether plaintiff No.2 was and in the absence of any such the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction was In fact, on 21.09.1999, panchayats of various villages o appoint defendant No.1 as Mohtamim of plaintiff Samadh and in pursuance thereto, the community of Shri Garib Dass Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh. It is also argued that report of local commissioner has been wrongly discarded Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, no interference is filed by the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone able assistance. he same, the defendants have Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Appellate Court gravely it of the plaintiffs in toto by ignoring the fact that defendant No.1 had duly proved possession of land comprised in Khatoni . aforesaid land since 1976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, thus, his possession was hostile Both the Courts below not rendered any finding on the issue whether plaintiff No.2 was and in the absence of any such the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction was In fact, on 21.09.1999, panchayats of various villages of plaintiff Samadh and in pursuance thereto, the community of Shri Garib Dass It is also argued that report of local commissioner has been wrongly discarded Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and therefore, no interference is and have gone PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 16. the appellants that the status of reference is made to jamabandi for the year 1986 that the property was the ownership of plaintiff No.1 which were PW-1 Surjeet Dass and PW Gurmeet Dass while appearing as DW the plaintiff No.2 concocted a story of him being involved with a lady discarded by both the Courts below evidence. 17. possession of the entire suit property falls flat, as recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257. in possession of Khasra No.38/1(8 measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmail Singh, another son of plaintiff No.2- Surjit Dass and Shingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8 Nos.38/9 and 37/15, a change of khasra girdawari stood recorded in favour of plaintiff No.2 respect to Khasra No.38/1(8 column No.9 of jambandi Ex.P7, defendant No.1 w of aforesaid khasra numbers as 2476 of 2000 -8- As regards the argument raised by learned senior counsel for the appellants that there is no finding rendered by both the Courts below on the status of plaintiff No.2 as Mohatmim reference is made to jamabandi for the year 1986 that the property was the ownership of plaintiff No.1 which were being managed by plaintiff No.2 1 Surjeet Dass and PW-2 Banta Singh Gurmeet Dass while appearing as DW-1 in his cross plaintiff No.2 being Mohtamim of plaintiff No.1 concocted a story of him being involved with a lady discarded by both the Courts below as was not substantiated by any cogent The case set up by defendant No.1 ession of the entire suit property falls flat, as recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257. in possession of Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 (8 measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmail Singh, another son of plaintiff Surjit Dass had been recorded in possession of Khasra No.38/9(7 and Shingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8 and 37/15, a change of khasra girdawari stood recorded in favour of plaintiff No.2-Surjit Dass w.e.f. Kharif 1990 to Kharif 1991 respect to Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 (8-0), 3/1(7 column No.9 of jambandi Ex.P7, defendant No.1 w of aforesaid khasra numbers as ba-waja argument raised by learned senior counsel for there is no finding rendered by both the Courts below on Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, reference is made to jamabandi for the year 1986-87, which duly proved that the property was the ownership of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, affairs of being managed by plaintiff No.2 as proved from testimonies of 2 Banta Singh. Rather, defendant No.1- in his cross-examination, admitted of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, though concocted a story of him being involved with a lady but the same was as was not substantiated by any cogent The case set up by defendant No.1 that he was in exclusive ession of the entire suit property falls flat, as plaintiff No.2 stood recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257. Defendant No.1 was shown 0), 2 (8-0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), total measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmail Singh, another son of plaintiff had been recorded in possession of Khasra No.38/9(7-12) and Shingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8-0). With respect to Khasra and 37/15, a change of khasra girdawari stood recorded in favour Surjit Dass w.e.f. Kharif 1990 to Kharif 1991. With 0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), entry in column No.9 of jambandi Ex.P7, defendant No.1 was shown in possession waja-pishar, which connotes that argument raised by learned senior counsel for there is no finding rendered by both the Courts below on Samadh, 87, which duly proved affairs of as proved from testimonies of - admitted though but the same was as was not substantiated by any cogent was in exclusive plaintiff No.2 stood recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land Defendant No.1 was shown 0), total measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmail Singh, another son of plaintiff 12) With respect to Khasra and 37/15, a change of khasra girdawari stood recorded in favour . With 0), entry in as shown in possession which connotes that PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 defendant No.1 was in father. It was duly established that plaintiff No.1 Samadh, defendant No.1 Therefore, it is rightly held by the learned 1 recording of the name of defendant No.1 in khasra girdawaries, D4, does not confer him forming part of 0). Further, As regards, report of the local commissioner, the learned Courts below have rightly n he consulted the revenue record no exclusive possession of defendant No.1 cannot be established merely from the fact that when the local commissioner reached at the defendant No.1 started 18. Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 19. and perversity below and the same 2476 of 2000 -9- defendant No.1 was in cultivating possession through plaintiff No.2, his It was duly established that plaintiff No.2 was plaintiff No.1-Samadh and being manager of the property of plaintiff No.1 Samadh, defendant No.1 was in possession through plaintiff No. Therefore, it is rightly held by the learned 1 recording of the name of defendant No.1 in khasra girdawaries, does not confer him exclusive possessory right of the forming part of Khasra No.38//1(8-0), 2(8- Further, As regards, report of the local commissioner, the learned Courts below have rightly not taken into consideration his report, as neither he consulted the revenue record nor took help of any revenue official. The exclusive possession of defendant No.1 cannot be established merely from the fact that when the local commissioner reached at the defendant No.1 started cutting the crop standing at the suit property. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, and perversity in concurrent finding of fact and the same is upheld. The regular second appeal possession through plaintiff No.2, his laintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of and being manager of the property of plaintiff No.1- was in possession through plaintiff No.2. Therefore, it is rightly held by the learned 1st Appellate Court that mere recording of the name of defendant No.1 in khasra girdawaries, Ex.D1 to possessory right of the land in dispute, -0), 3/1(7-4), 9(7-12) and 10(8- Further, As regards, report of the local commissioner, the learned ot taken into consideration his report, as neither took help of any revenue official. The exclusive possession of defendant No.1 cannot be established merely from the fact that when the local commissioner reached at the spot, son of cutting the crop standing at the suit property. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality of fact rendered by both the Courts he regular second appeals are dismissed. possession through plaintiff No.2, his of - . Appellate Court that mere Ex.D1 to , - Further, As regards, report of the local commissioner, the learned ot taken into consideration his report, as neither took help of any revenue official. The exclusive possession of defendant No.1 cannot be established merely from spot, son of In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by no illegality rendered by both the Courts PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2476 20. dismissed, no further order is required petition, thus, 21. September 02 Pankaj* 2476 of 2000 -10- In view of the fact that regular second appeals stand dismissed, no further order is required petition, thus, the same is dismissed as such. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL September 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the fact that regular second appeals stand to be passed in the contempt the same is dismissed as such. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view of the fact that regular second appeals stand the contempt PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh